Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SOUTH YORKSHIRE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT BILL [Lords]

UNITED MEDICAL AND DENTAL SCHOOLS BILL [Lords]

Orders for consideration read.

To be considered on Thursday 9 November at Seven o'clock.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL ( By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Monday 13 November.

MEDWAY TUNNEL BILL [Lords] ( By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Monday 13 November.

BRITISH FILM INSTITUTE SOUTHBANK BILL

Motion made,
That the Promoters of the British Film Institute Southbank Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

To be considered on Thursday 9 November at Seven o'clock.

REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL

Motion made,
That the Promoters of the Redbridge London Borough Council Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings there or in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later

than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

To be considered on Thursday 9 November at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Industrial Development

Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what financial resources are available to the Welsh Development Agency during the current financial year for the purposes of industrial development; and what plans he has to increase this sum for the next financial year.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): The Welsh Development Agency has a total budget for 1989–90 of £130 million which will be deployed in promoting economic development in Wales. This represents an increase of over 50 per cent. on the budget for 1987–88. The agency's spending plans for 1990–91 will be announced following the Chancellor's Autumn Statement.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Secretary of State aware that the WDA in Gwynedd has not been able to go ahead with some scheduled industrial site projects because of a lack of finance? At a meeting with me, the WDA attributed this to the effect of projects such as those involving Bosch and Toyota—welcome though they are in themselves—on the overall budget. Budgets for areas such as Gwynedd are sucked in to meet those requirements. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the WDA has asked that additional resources be made available? Can he confirm that major additional resources will be made available to meet the needs of major projects? Will he ensure that the resources from capital sales are available to the WDA for such projects and that it can roll its budget over from one year to the next?

Mr. Walker: I am pleased to say that, partly because of sales and partly because of extra Government funds, there has been a substantial increase in the budget of 50 per cent. In Gwynedd, 23,000 sq ft of WDA floor space is vacant. The WDA plans to start work on an additional 50,000 sq


ft of factory and workshop floor space in the current financial year. On average, one factory a month has been built in the past 10 years. Much has been done, but I recognise that there is much more to be done.

Mr. Raffan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that now that substantial private sector investment is creating business parks and providing factory space in south-east Clwyd—in Wrexham Maelor and in Alyn and Deeside —the WDA should concentrate its resources on factory development in north-east Clwyd, coastal Clwyd and Gwynedd, so that we can achieve a more balanced provision of WDA factory space in north Wales?

Mr. Walker: It is important that the WDA concentrates its substantially increased facilities and money in those areas where job creation has the highest priority.

Mr. Barry Jones: The WDA plays an important role abroad. In the interests of Welsh business, can the Secretary of State tell the House when he thinks that Britain should join the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system? Is he hiding behind the Prime Minister's skirts, or is he shoulder to shoulder with the Leader of the House, the former Foreign Secretary?

Mr. Walker: I consider that careful judgment needs to be given to the exact timing.

Hospital Waiting Lists

Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the current in-patient and out-patient hospital waiting lists in each of the Welsh area health authorites, by specialty.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): As the answer contains numerous figures I will with permission, Mr. Speaker, circulate the information in the Official Report.

Mrs. Clwyd: Is it not true that while the figures for mid-Glamorgan show a slight improvement, within those figures there is another tale, especially in the Cynon-Merthyr area? Is it not a fact that, over the past five years, the number of in-patients and out-patients waiting for hospital treatment has remained more or less the same? Is that the best that the Minister can do?

Mr. Grist: First, may I congratulate the hon. Lady on her electoral success and take leave to evince that I do not think that she will ever hide behind her convictions.
I think that the hon. Lady would like to join me in congratulating her health authority on the 30 per cent. reduction between March 1987 and March 1989 in the number of in-patients waiting more than one year for treatment.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Can my hon. Friend say anything about the proposed treatment centres intended to shorten waiting lists for certain forms of treatment?

31 March 1989
Out-Patients Waiting List


Specialty
Pembrokeshire
Clwyd
East Dyfed
Gwent
Gwynedd
Mid Glamorgan
Powys
South Glamorgan
West Glamorgan
Wales


General Medicine
180
510
357
674
523
908
9
792
328
4,281


Paediatrics
39
144
85
121
62
205
27
448
103
1,234


Chest Disease
14
14

68
15
78

94
17
300


Dermatology
465
760
724
2,304
226
3,174
41
2,354
2,016
12,064


Neurology

114
176
16
33
23
9
634
705
1,710

Mr. Grist: Yes. My hon. Friend knows that Ysbyty Gwynedd will have one of the treatment centres. We debated them fully in the Welsh Grand Committee last week. The centres will speed up operations for people on waiting lists. Although I do not wish to overemphasise waiting lists, the centres will make a major contribution to shortening the waiting lists which we all deplore.

Mr. Livsey: Does the Minister agree that Powys health authority should be congratulated on its attempts to reduce waiting lists by means of its health education programme aimed at eliminating hydatid disease? Does he further agree that such a programme would be more effective if the Welsh Office fully funded a dog-worming scheme, as has been done in New Zealand where the disease has been practically eliminated? Was it not self-evident on Saturday, from the way in which the New Zealand team performed, that that had been effective?

Mr. Grist: I did not know that it was a case of a need for worming. The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. He will be aware that the Welsh Office funded a worming programme which has now been handed over successfully to the Powys health authority, which has welcomed the programme.

Mr. Michael: Will the Minister confirm that he has not given us three treatment centres to tackle waiting lists, but merely an extension of the time of three consultants and support staff? That hardly amounts to three centres. Will he further confirm that all health authorities in Wales are having to make cuts and savings in the middle of the current financial year because of the Government's economic failure? What does he intend to do about that? Will he make available a special allocation of funds to tackle the £130 million repairs backlog in Welsh hospitals? Will he now address the problem of waiting lists in Wales, which he has so far failed to tackle?

Mr. Grist: I can confirm that authorities are expected to raise 1·3 per cent. of their funding through cost improvements and income-generation schemes, as they have successfully done in the past. We anticipate that on top of the 7·3 per cent. increase in funding, that will be sufficient to meet their immediate requirements. On all the other matters that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, such as upkeep and the £130 million backlog, he might like to take into account that when his party was in office, health authorities did not even know the capital value of their stocks because they did not bother to record them. Of the enormous value of hospital stocks in Wales, £130 million is a small proportion. Every hon. Member knows of old hospitals in his constituency that are due to be changed, modernised or closed and replaced with new facilities. That is included in those figures.

Following is the information:




31 March 1989
Out-Patients Waiting List


Specialty
Pembrokeshire
Clwyd
East Dyfed
Gwent
Gwynedd
Mid Glamorgan
Powys
South Glamorgan
West Glamorgan
Wales


Cardiology


1




462

463


Phys Med/Rehab












STD












Rheumatology

94
72
436

923
8
435
455
2,423


Geriatrics
2
30
14
24

32

50

152


Younger Disabled












General Surgery
409
1,301
849
1,646
785
1,612
97
2,847
1,568
11,114


ENT
920
1,376
1,300
1,572
834
2,641
261
2,648
2,363
13,915


Trau and Orth
757
1,182
839
2,721
708
3,219
275
3,111
3,169
15,981


Ophthalmology
84
1,043
360
864
1,302
1,787
186
1,523
1,377
8,526


Radiotherapy

16





26
15
57


Urology

490

128

170

633
1,524
2,945


Plastic Surgery

206
39
208
26
26


169
674


Thoracic Surgery

2







2


Dental Surgery
32
517
109
902
224
204
37
304
519
2,848


Orthodontics
20
230
260
330
86
87
92
1,352
321
2,778


Neurosurgery

5


7


82
26
120


Gynaecology
196
826
605
1,307
424
1,614
28
1,233
1,152
7,385


Psych Children

47



46


34
127


Mental H'Cap












Mental Illness

67
62
259
33
454
3
210
85
1,173


Adol Psych Units












GP Medical












GP Dental












Others:—












Pain Relief

50
6
6
13




75


Colposcopy
17








17


Obstetrics

171
32

59




262


Haematology

5

8

14


8
35


Sex. Dysfunction





6



6


Cardiac Surgery







56

56


Psycho Geriatric



22





22


Total
3,135
9,200
5,890
13,616
5,360
17,223
1,073
19,294
15,954
90,745

31 March 1989
In-Palients Waiting List


Specialty
Pembrokeshire
Clwyd
East Dyfed
Gwent
Gwynedd
Mid Glamorgan
Powys
South Glamorgan
West Glamorgan
Wales


General Medicine

5





39
2
46


Paediatrics







135

135


Chest Disease












Dermatology


9




5

14


Neurology







63
18
81


Cardiology







110

110


Physical Medical Rehabilitation





151



151


STD












Rheumatology



28

10

2
60
100


Geriatrics


1
12


4


17


Younger Disabled












General Surgery
1,457
1,118
940
1,762
843
1,742

1,299
1,264
10,425


ENT

1,215
479
914
735
2,124

737
1,057
7,261


Trauma and Orthopaedic
800
904
436
2,043
119
1,132

1,801
1,079
8,314


Ophthalmology

356
674
868
611
397

633
964
4,503


Radiotherapy







54
16
70


Urology

568

651

66

822
81
2,188


Plastic Surgery



2,049





2,049


Thoracic Surgery












Dental Surgery

267

266
354
140

255
418
1,700


Orthodontics












Neurosurgery







54
79
133


Gynaecology
232
706
229
938
272
862

470
706
4,415


Psych Children












Mental Handicap












Mental Illness





6


6
12


Adolescent Psych Units












GP Medical






113


113


GP Dental


8






8

31 March 1989
In-Patients Waiting List


Specialty
Pembrokeshire
Clwyd
East Dyfed
Gwent
Gwynedd
Mid Glamorgan
Powys
South Glamorgan
West Glamorgan
Wales


Others












Pain Relief












Colposcopy












Obstetrics












Haematology












Sexual Dysfunction












Cardiac Surgery







119

119


Psycho Geriatric












TOTAL
2,489
5,139
2,776
9,531
2,934
6,630
117
6,598
5,750
41,964

Eye Tests

Mr. Coleman: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has made a review of the numbers of people in Wales undergoing eye tests since the change in the regulations; and what the corresponding number was for the appropriate period prior to the change.

Mr. Grist: Most of the sight tests undertaken since 1 April 1989 have been private transactions and statistical information is not available centrally. The number of National Health Service sight tests from April to September 1988 for which payment was made to opticians was 329,925. It is considered too early to review the effect of the change in regulations, but the Government intend to commission a survey later this year on the volume of sight tests.

Mr. Coleman: Under the new lights here in the Chamber, can I not see a blush of shame on the Minister's face? Is he aware that ophthalmologists acting as consultants to opticians are worried that, as a result of the abolition of free eye tests, they are now unable properly to monitor people whom they suspect to be liable to suffer from glaucoma, even though the disease does not exist at present in the family? Will he impress upon his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health the need to take note of the matter and to restore free eye testing to ensure good eye health for everyone?

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman and others describe the average charge of around £10 as rather too much of a deterrent to the ordinary person. It is worth remembering that about 20 million people are eligible for free sight tests, including, as the hon. Gentleman must know from the way in which he put the question, all those who are closely related to people who suffer from glaucoma disease.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Is my hon. Friend aware that some opticians are offering free sight tests? Does he agree that this is a matter best left to opticians as part of a comprehensive service? Does he further agree that as a result of the Government's changes, opticians are now offering a far better range of glasses and contact lenses at a far lower real cost?

Mr. Grist: That is absolutely true and bears out the rules of competition in the. market place. As I said in my original answer, we are monitoring what is happening and we shall want to see what occurs. We have no desire, of course, to damage anybody's eyesight.

Mr. John P. Smith: On the important issue of eye tests, the Minister and other hon. Members would be forgiven for thinking that I am holding a jar of marmalade. In fact, it is drinking water drawn off by a constituent of mine in the community of Craig Penllyne. Does the Minister wish to comment on that?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does this have anything to do with eye tests?

Rail Electrification

Dr. Marek: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has had any discussions with British Rail regarding electrification of the Crewe to Holyhead line or the Western main line from Paddington to Swansea.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): My right hon. Friend discussed electrification when he met the chairman of British Rail on 12 December 1988.

Dr. Marek: I have been told that the Welsh Office favours electrification of the line from Paddington to south Wales, as opposed to electrification of the line from Crewe to Holyhead. If that is not the case, I should welcome the Minister's assurance to that effect and I should like him to say unequivocally that he will press British Rail—if in its wisdom it wishes to do it—for electrification of either line. One should not precede the other, for both are important to the industrial development of the Principality.

Mr. Roberts: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. There is no justification for saying that the Welsh Office has pressed the case for one line as opposed to the other. I must warn the hon. Gentleman that the case for electrification is weak on both economic and financial grounds for both lines. There is a tendency to regard electrification as magical. We are really interested in improved journey times and I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that British Rail is considering improving the north Wales line so that the maximum speed could be 90 mph rather than 70 mph, as at present.

Mr. Sayeed: On the journey between Paddington and Swansea, the train passes through a number of English and Welsh constituencies. As my hon. Friend will know, the average size of an English constituency is 69,533 electors, whereas a Welsh constituency has an average of 57,753 electors. Will my hon. Friend tell us why a Welsh vote is worth 20 per cent. more than an English vote?

Mr. Roberts: I suppose that the simple answer is that we are. My hon. Friend will be aware of the different sizes of constituencies in England, Scotland and Wales, and of the three, Scotland is the most favoured.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Is the Minister aware that there are two important lines going through mid-Wales, one from Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth and one from Shrewsbury through Llandrindod Wells to Swansea. Will the Minister have a word with the chairman of British Rail and try to persuade him to spend more money on those important routes?

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman will concede that there have been considerable improvements to rail services in different parts of Wales, including mid-Wales. There is an improved frequency of services in north Wales, as a result of the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. There are extra trains and coaches on the south Wales line and improvements in mid-Wales as well.

Welsh Counties Committee

Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the Welsh Counties Committee; and what matters were discussed.

Mr. Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the representatives of district councils in Wales; and what matters were discussed.

Mr. Peter Walker: I met representatives of the Welsh Counties Committee and the Council of Welsh Districts at a meeting of the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance on 2 November to discuss local government finance matters.

Mr. Morgan: Perhaps one of the burning topics that will be put before the Secretary of State when he next meets the Welsh Counties Committee will be the appalling bungle that the Welsh Office has made during the past 12 months. It has prevented Welsh counties, including South and West Glamorgan and Clwyd, from submitting to the European Commission applications for grants from the regional development fund to help with infrastructure schemes. Now that the counties are in a position to submit schemes for consideration, the EEC has changed the rules, and large infrastructure projects are no longer available. I should like to hear from the Secretary of State what his own estimate is, but it looks to me as though his Department and his bungling have cost the British taxpayer more than £66 million. Can he comment on that?

Mr. Walker: Yes, I can comment on it. The hon. Gentleman's assertions are mythical and unfounded, and the Welsh counties local authorities have expressed considerable gratitude for all the help that the Welsh Office has given them:

Mr. Murphy: Did not Welsh council leaders tell the Secretary of State at the meeting last Thursday that his figure of £175 for the Welsh poll tax is a massive underestimate? Will he admit that the implementation of the poll tax in Wales is now a shambles, and that councils face even higher administrative and running costs as a direct result of his Government's policy? Does not all this

anyway smack of back-pedalling and panic because there is not one friend of the poll tax in the Principality of Wales?

Mr. Walker: I am only sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not present at the meeting, which was cordial and constructive. There were no complaints along the lines that he describes, and I suggest that he consults local authorities more fully to find out what is really going on.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Did my right hon. Friend discuss the fear of many in Wales that some local councils are using the inevitable confusion arising from the change in revenue raising next April and the fact that many of them do not have to face elections to raise the community charge far higher than is necessary? That will be a decision of the Welsh local councils. What steps does my right hon. Friend propose to take to protect the people of Wales from such councils?

Mr. Walker: I hope that such actions will not be taken. The background is that Welsh authorities in the main have acted responsibly and that is one reason why we have succeeded in negotiating a community charge in Wales of about £100 less than that in England or Scotland.

Mr. Flynn: Did the counties committee raise with the Secretary of State the disparity in spending in Scotland and Wales—especially spending on the Health Service? Is he aware that two parliamentary answers today show that the average spending on the Health Service per head of the population is £504 in Scotland, whereas the average in Wales is a mere £445. Why is that?

Mr. Walker: As the hon. Gentleman tabled the questions himself, he will know that exactly the same differential existed in 1978 and 1979.

Mr. Barry Jones: On a matter as important as poll tax transitional relief and revenue support grant in Wales, why has the right hon. Gentleman decided not to make an oral statement? We note that the Secretary of State for the Environment proposes to make such a statement and to submit to oral questioning. Do you note, Mr. Speaker, that on the Order Paper for written answer today are questions tabled by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) relating to the poll tax and revenue support grants? Why is the Secretary of State running away from the House? Why has he decided not to make a statement and answer questions? Why has he elected to behave in so slippery a style? He knows that Wales hates the poll tax and that Welsh local authorities are starved of cash. Why is there no statement to the House?

Mr. Walker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I intend to make an oral statement as usual—certainly way before Christmas—when I shall give full details of my proposals for local government finance. Following my constructive meeting with local authorities the local authority associations shared my view that it would not be helpful at this stage to publish examples illustrating the likely effects of my proposals on individual authorities. As Wales has done far better in terms of the poll tax than the rest of the United Kingdom, I shall rejoice in making that statement.

M4

Mr. Gareth Wardell: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will invite tenders in 1990 to enable the sections on the M4 between Lon-las and Baglan to be completed by the end of 1992.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Tenders have been invited for the Earlswood Lon-las scheme with a view to letting the contract before the end of this financial year. Work on the two remaining schemes is planned to start early in the period April 1991 to March 1994 as shown in "Roads in Wales 1989". These schemes will take two and a half and three years respectively and will be completed simultaneously.

Mr. Wardell: The Minister has given a totally unacceptable time scale in his reply involving a three-year span and he is not willing to give a precise date when those two sections will begin. Does the Minister accept that the people of Wales must be deeply embarrassed after 10 years of Conservative Government because the M4 in Wales remains incomplete and that is a major obstacle to the creation of new jobs west of that particular bottleneck which is driving inward investment away from an area which desperately needs it?

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman cannot have heard my reply. I said that the two remaining schemes were planned to start early in the period April 1991 to March 1994. We are well aware of the problems with congestion on the M4 and A48 and that is why we are currently undertaking a scheme of road widening and traffic signalling at Baglan roundabout which will be completed early in the new year. We have further schemes to alleviate congestion for Briton Ferry and the Earlswood roundabouts. Those schemes will give us time to complete this very large project which will cost £116 million at November 1988 prices.

Mid-Glamorgan Health Authority

Dr. Kim Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairman of Mid-Glamorgan health authority; and what matters were discussed.

Mr. Grist: The Secretary of State and I met the chairman of Mid-Glamorgan health authority, together with other Welsh health authority chairmen, on 30 November 1988. We discussed a number of issues, including the NHS review and resource allocations for 1989–90.

Dr. Howells: Given the high rates of morbidity and illness in the Mid-Glamorgan health authority area and the dilapidated state of key sections of its most important hospital—East Glamorgan general hospital—does the Minister have any plans to speed up the replacement of that hospital? Given that until now it has been common currency that the site for the replacement hospital will be Ynys Plwm to the north of Talbot Green, will he explain the curious anomaly whereby information has been made public recently stating that the Minister wants that site to be available for industrial and commercial expansion?

Mr. Grist: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that although a number of planning approval and funding issues remain to be resolved, it is understood that Mid-Glamorgan health authority continues to focus its

efforts on securing land at Ynys Plwm. That remains the position as of today. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we deferred consideration of the health authority's proposals pending the authority's financial and timing proposals. That remains the present position.

Mr. Ron Davies: May I draw the Minister's attention to the situation in Rhymney valley and will he raise that issue with the chairman of the health authority the next time he meets him? Waiting lists in Rhymney valley are increasing almost monthly and the quality of the service is deteriorating, but there are no plans to make adequate provision in Rhymney valley and the neighbouring Islwyn valley because of administrative arrangements and disagreements between Mid-Glamorgan health authority and Gwent area health authority. Does the Minister accept that about 150,000 people do not have a district general hospital? Instead of cutting the service and undermining the morale of staff in the National Health Service, should not the Minister be persuading those two area health authorities to get together and co-operate? If he provides the funds, we can have our new district general hospital.

Mr. Grist: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's local point on this contentious issue which has been running for a great many years now. However, it is ludicrous for the hon. Gentleman to talk about cuts when expenditure on the Health Service in Wales has risen from £488 million to £1,600 million. I assure him that our proposals under the NHS review should assist his constituents to have operations and treatment in neighbouring hospitals more easily and flexibly than hitherto.

Mr. Rowlands: Did the Minister's discussions relate to the problems faced by elderly people in Merthyr, for example, who are awaiting hip operations—people who do not have a lot of time to wait? Was he able to discuss how many such operations were to be conducted at the treatment centre at Rhydlafar, and how many people who are presently on the Prince Charles hospital waiting list will go for that treatment? Above all, why can we not have the facility at the hospital in the community in which those people are living?

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the very point that I was making to his hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) about our Health Service review. His health authority had various visiting consultants to the Prince Charles hospital, illustrating that the facilities there could be used at a far higher intensity. That is precisely what would be available under our proposals.

British Rail

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairman of British Rail; and what matters were discussed.

Mr. Peter Walker: I last met the chairman of British Rail on 12 December 1988. The discussions covered a wide range of issues.

Mr. Jones: In view of the Minister of State's reply to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), will the Secretary of State now give the House the whole picture and confirm that British Rail intends to cut expenditure and upgrading work on the section of line between


Holyhead and Bangor? That information was provided by British Rail only recently. Does the Secretary of State agree that such cuts are utterly disgraceful, bearing in mind that British Rail is prepared to commit millions of pounds to the Channel tunnel project but is withdrawing investment from an important line connecting Ireland and Europe? Does he agree that that priority causes the people of Holyhead to wonder whether British Rail is committed to the future of that line? Will he make our views known to the chairman of British Rail when he next meets him?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that British Rail is spending a great deal of money on improving rolling stock and times in mid-Wales and north Wales. Total expenditure by British Rail in Wales is at a high level, some of which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, must be heavily subsidised, and correctly so. British Rail is doing a great deal of modernisation work, which I welcome.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is a justified fear in south-west Wales that British Rail is not interested in anything west of Cardiff? In particular, there is concern that InterCity services will stop at Cardiff. There is concern also that no attempt is being made to provide a direct and speedy link from south-west Wales to the Channel tunnel. When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the chairman of British Rail, will he get an assurance that InterCity services will not end at Cardiff? Will the Welsh Office, British Rail and the county council try to plan a direct link from south-west Wales to the Channel tunnel?

Mr. Walker: Rail services to Swansea are exceedingly good by any standards. It is a great mistake for the right hon. Gentleman to imply that they have not been maintained to a high order. There are no plans to reduce that service. There are quite a few plans to improve British Rail's rolling stock and general service.
On the Channel tunnel, there is a need for better terminal arrangements in south Wales and north Wales. Important as it is to get good use of the Channel tunnel, if it has maximum success it will carry only 15 per cent. of freight from this country to Europe. It is in Wales's interests to look at where the other 85 per cent. is going.

Toxic Waste (Clwyd)

Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from individuals and organisations opposed to the dumping of toxic wastes at sites in Clwyd.

Mr. Grist: Representations have been received from hon. Members and from a number of organisations and individuals in connection with proposals for new waste disposal sites and the operations of an existing one in Clwyd.

Mr. Jones: I should not be surprised if the representations include some from residents of Pentre, which is near the Penybont works. Those works will be used for toxic waste. Also, 80 per cent. of the perimeter of the works is surrounded by the River Dee. Will the Secretary of State ask the Government whether an environmental protection agency should be established to protect the residents of Clwyd and of Britain from such a dangerous development?

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman is going a little far. I know of the concern that is expressed by him and by many residents in the area about the various proposals. However, this matter is still in the hon. Gentleman's county council's hands. That is the right place for it to rest for the time being.

Employment Training

Mr. Ray Powell: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what number of males and females were employed on a part-time basis and on employment training for the past 12 months.

Mr. Peter Walker: In June this year 197,000 females were estimated to be employed in Wales on a part-time basis, an increase of 8,000 on the June 1988 figure. Comparable figures for male part-time employment are not available. Over the past 12 months, 24,894 males and 10,168 females have started employment training in Wales.

Mr. Powell: Is the Secretary of State aware that since the abolition of the community programme training schemes, the ET schemes have failed to keep pace with the number of people employed on the CP schemes? What can the Secretary of State offer the people of Wales in terms of real training and real jobs? He said that male part-time employment figures are not available, but will he tell me, the House and Wales where he stands on the issue of the part-time Sir Alan Walters who was sacked by the Prime Minister and on the question of the dispute between the Prime Minister and the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer because that is what——

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is wide of the question.

Mr. Walker: As, I believe, the one Cabinet Minister who has no advisers, I have none of those problems. One of the most important aspects in developing training is the development of training and enterprise councils. I am pleased by the degree to which Glamorgan is giving the lead in that respect and I hope that the TECs will soon be in place doing important work.

Mr. Wigley: As one of the 38 full-time advisers to the Secretary of State in Wales, may I ask him whether he accepts that part-time and seasonal jobs often camouflage problems in areas that are heavily dependent on tourism? Will he therefore look sympathetically at grant applications for projects that are meant to extend part-time and seasonal jobs into full-time job opportunities?

Mr. Walker: Obviously, I would be reluctant to sack the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] That should do him damage. Any application will be considered on its merits.

Mrs. Fyfe: May I say first how pleased I am to join my sister and brother Celts this afternoon? Secondly, has the Minister any advice—part time or otherwise—on the appalling imbalance between the opportunities for men and women on employment training in Wales, and what is he doing about it?

Mr. Walker: I am glad that over the past two years there has been a substantial increase in the opportunities for female employment in Wales and I hope that that will continue.

Salmonella

Mr. Raffan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects the Welsh Office inquiry into the salmonella outbreaks in Flint to be completed; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Grist: The Department is conducting an internal review of the handling of the outbreak to establish any lessons that can be learned for the future. The review will be completed as quickly as possible.

Mr. Raffan: Will my hon. Friend ensure that the review is completed in time for the Government to write their recommendation into next Session's proposed food Bill? Does my hon. Friend agree that in the event of future outbreaks it will be essential that we ensure much more effective co-operation between the local health authorities and local district councils involved, which means putting somebody in charge, preferably the local health authority?

Mr. Grist: The findings of the review will be considered in connection with the Bill. My hon. Friend has put his finger on the very points that the review will consider co-ordination and co-operation between various authorities during an outbreak.

Mr. Livsey: Is the Minister aware that there is a two-to-three-day delay in the notification of food poisoning incidents between the Welsh Office and the district councils, whereas in England the Department of the Environment gives district councils the information immediately? What is he going to do to put that matter right?

Mr. Grist: As I have already said, that is one of the points that the review will consider. There are various points of view about how quickly one should issue warnings.

New Jobs

Sir Anthony Meyer: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many new jobs he has been able to announce for Wales during the summer recess.

Mr. Walker: I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that a number of major industrial investments in Wales were announced during the recess, including projects by Newbridge Networks, Gooding-Sanken and Dow Corning-Cabot. During the same period, more than 40 companies accepted regional selective assistance offers involving total investment of £42 million and the creation of nearly 1,700 new jobs. Between July and September, seasonally adjusted unemployment in Wales fell by some 6,000—from 96,200 to 90,200.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these extremely satisfactory figures are a tribute to the manner in which he has combined the use of market forces, judicious intervention and some pretty ruthless arm-twisting?

Mr. Walker:: A range of factors are involved in that, but it is pleasing to know that, during the past year, unemployment in Wales has fallen faster than in any other region on the United Kingdom, and unemployment in the valleys has fallen faster than the rate for Wales as a whole.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Does the Secretary of State agree with the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) who said in the House last Tuesday that we were once again in a downswing and that:
a dull 1989 is bound to be followed by a difficult 1990"?—[Official Report, 31 October 1989; Vol. 159, c. 209.]
How long will it be before unemployment in Wales starts to rise again?

Mr. Walker: I am certain that the hon. Gentleman is one of those who have been cheering since the last general election. At that time, unemployment in Wales was 74 per cent. higher than it is now.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Rudolf Hess

Mr. Morgan: To ask the Attorney-General what decision the Director of Public Prosecutions has come to in respect of the Jones report on the circumstances surrounding the death of Rudolf Hess in Spandau prison in 1987.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): The inquiries carried out by Detective Chief Superintendent Jones have produced no cogent evidence to suggest that Rudolf Hess was murdered; nor, on the view of the Director of Public Prosecutions, is there any basis for further investigation.

Mr. Morgan: Does the Solicitor-General agree that that is a deeply disappointing answer, if it is the truth? While the Government and the Prime Minister may not have improved their batting average in the veracity stakes over the past weekend, does he agree that, as the Jones report recommended that there were grounds for a full criminal investigation, it is deeply disappointing to find the hon. and learned Gentlemen coming to the House to say that he has done a Stalker on the issue.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman fails to realise that the prosecution process is wholly independent of the Government. It is assessed independently by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the results represent his independent conclusions.

Kincora Boys' Home

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received asking for a reexamination of the evidence relating to Kincora boys' home with a view to prosecuting some of those involved.

The Solicitor-General: None, Sir.

Mr. Dalyell: What event or series of events prompted or induced so careful a Permanent Secretary as Sir Michael Quinlan to write formally to Sir Robin Butler to ask for a public inquiry into Kincora?

The Solicitor-General: There have been two inquiries into Kincora. Neither has given rise to justification for any further criminal proceedings, over and above those that took place and led to the conviction of four people in 1981.

Mr. Maclennan: Why has the Solicitor-General completely failed to answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)?

The Solicitor-General: I have nothing to add to my previous answer.

Criminal Cases

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Attorney-General what recent discussions he has had with the Director of Public Prosecutions regarding criminal cases.

The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I have met the director on a number of occasions in the past month to discuss matters of departmental interest.

Mr. Winnick: Is the Director of Public Prosecutions considering the serious allegations about insider dealing by companies? Arising from that, is it part of the role of the Attorney-General to advise the Prime Minister on the need for rules to be tightened on shares held by Ministers?

The Attorney-General: The answer to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question is no. The policy of criminal law is the ministerial responsibility of the Home Secretary. I would gladly give the answer to the first part of the question, if I could remember it.

Mr. Fraser: I wonder whether the Director of Public Prosecutions, when he met the Attorney-General, discussed the Guildford Four bombing case. Does the Attorney-General agree that, without disrespect to the courts, the acquittal of the Guildford Four was a ritual by the Court of Appeal, in the sense that they were convicted by one police force and acquitted by another? Can the Attorney-General confirm that the DPP, when giving evidence to Mr. Justice May's inquiry, will take a constructive view of his role, not just to secure good convictions but to avoid miscarriages of justice?
Outstanding cases of miscarriage of justice have often been righted not by the ultimate investigations of the courts but by outside investigations which might be put in hand by the DPP.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman asks whether the acquittal of the Guildford Four by the Court of Appeal was a ritual acquittal. No acquittal is a ritual acquittal and no conviction is a ritual conviction. The acquittal of the Guildford Four followed upon the Court of Appeal's attention being drawn to new information, which in the opinion of the Director of Public Prosecutions, with which I entirely agreed, rendered the original convictions unsafe.
As to the attitude of the Director of Public Prosecutions to Sir John May's inquiry, I assure the House that the Director wishes to co-operate in the fullest possible way with Sir John May as he pursues the terms of reference that have been given for his inquiry, which could hardly be more widely drawn.

Mr. Gow: What further steps will be taken by my right hon. and learned Friend or by the Director of Public Prosecutions to bring Mr. Patrick Ryan to trial, either in the United Kingdom or in the Republic of Ireland?

The Attorney-General: If Mr. Patrick Ryan is located in any country outside this jurisdiction with which we have the means of securing his arrest so that he may be brought to face trial here those steps will be taken. I assure the House that the Director of Public Prosecutions and the prosecuting authorities of this country will take all steps open to them to secure that Mr. Ryan faces trial.

Appeal Statistics

Mr. Baldry: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the number of appeals against conviction made to the Court of Appeal in the last five years, the number that have been allowed and the number that have been refused.

The Attorney-General: From 1 January 1985 to 30 September 1989 the total number of applications for leave to appeal against conviction received by the Court of Appeal was 7,964. A total of 2,179 appeals against conviction were considered by the court and of those 878–40·3 per cent.—were allowed in full or in part and 1,301 were dismissed.

Mr. Baldry: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the criminal courts and the Court of Appeal can act only on the basis of the admissible evidence before them? Over the centuries the courts have worked painstakingly on admissibility and on the law of evidence to ensure that the best interests of the defendant are served. In those circumstances does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that those who are urging some sort of new tier in addition to the Court of Appeal, whether it is a people's court or something similar, simply do not understand the nature of the criminal court system or the painstaking efforts that are now taken by trial judges and by the Court of Appeal to act in the best interests of fairness and justice?

The Attorney-General: I agree very much with my hon. Friend. I have greatly regretted some rather loose imputations that have been made against the courts in the light of recent events. I say that without commenting in one way or another upon the events with which the House has already been concerned this afternoon. The Court of Appeal deals with such matters in a most conscientious way and the work is extremely arduous. I can only suggest to those who are minded to make adverse imputations about the way in which the Court of Appeal does its work that they should go to watch that court at work.

Mr. Sedgemore: If it is true, as we have just heard, that, over the centuries, the judges have been arduous in t pursuit of justice, how does the Attorney-General explain the actions of Judge Jeffreys after the battle of Sedgemoor?

The Attorney-General: I do not know how many centuries we are going back, but I would be happy, with the hon. Gentleman, to compare the record of this country's judiciary, century for century and in the light of contemporary standards, with that of any judiciary of any other country in the world. One interesting thing that. I find extremely reassuring is the way in which people who live in other civilised countries speak of our judiciary and police force and about how they feel very much safer in this country than anywhere else.

Mr. Lawrence: Further to my right hon. and learned Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), is he aware that in only six cases in the past 20 years has the Court of Appeal quashed a conviction because it was not satisfied with the jury's verdict? Would it not be better for public confidence in the ability of the Court of Appeal to correct miscarriages of justice if the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 were amended so that the court had to satisfy itself on the evidence that the jury's verdict


was correct, as was recommended by a recent Justice committee report chaired by a former Lord Justice of Appeal, Sir George Waller?

The Attorney-General: My hon. and learned Friend could well make that interesting suggestion, if he were so minded, to Sir John May's inquiry which has the widest possible terms of reference.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

India

Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the United Kingdom doing to help improve primary education in India.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): A grant of just over £31 million was approved in September for a primary education project in the state of Andhra Pradesh. It provides for the design and construction of some 1,100 teachers' centres and 4,000 classrooms mostly in remote rural areas throughout the state. It also covers teacher training, in child-centred learning techniques, teaching materials and research and evaluation.

Mr. Cran: Does my right hon. Friend agree that educational support is a particularly important form of aid, especially because of the long-term benefits that it confers? Therefore, will she tell the House whether, in India, the United Kingdom benefits other than primary education?

Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we provide more than £3 million towards the development of the Indira Gandhi national open university and other distance learning projects. In addition, there are a large number of English language tuition programmes and numerous collaborative links between British and Indian academic institutions. There is also a United Kingdom training programme which costs about £11 million a year.

Mr. Vaz: The Minister is probably not aware that Leicestershire county council's director of education has recently returned from a three-week visit to India, where he established important links with Indian schools. Does she join me in supporting such ventures? If she does, what plans has she to enable more resources to be made available for local authorities to establish such important cultural links?

Mrs. Chalker: Of course I welcome cultural links between local authorities and other countries that can benefit from such links. I should like to learn more about the links between Leicestershire county council and the Indians. If they are worthwhile projects, which fall in with the Indian Government's overall considerations, there is no reason why, in due time, other projects should not follow.

Wildlife Conservation (Africa)

Miss Widdecombe: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what Britain is providing through the aid programme to help with wildlife conservation in Africa.

Mrs. Chalker: Britain has long been helping African Governments with their wildlife conservation efforts, and we are always ready to consider new requests for help. I have placed a list of recent and continuing activities in the Library of the House.

Miss Widdecombe: Following the recently imposed ban on the international ivory trade, have the Government any intention of helping specifically with elephant conservation in east Africa?

Mrs. Chalker: We have been providing help to the Kenya wildlife department for many years, and expect to continue to do so. Following a request from the Tanzanian Government, we are about to appoint consultants to look at possible ways of helping that country with its conservation efforts. We shall look at all the ways in which we can reasonably help with conservation.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Government are not doing enough. Will the Minister commend President Arap Moi for destroying millions of dollars worth of ivory which was confiscated from poachers? Will she give an undertaking that Governments such as the Kenyan Government and others that wish, and are willing, to destroy poached ivory stocks will be fully compensated by the British Government? That is what the people of this country want.

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman takes the issue further than many in the House and country would do. Of course, President Moi gave the world an important signal about poached ivory stocks. It is also important that we should help African countries to conserve and preserve their elephant stocks. However, we must eliminate ivory poaching. That is why we have long been engaged in helping countries that have an active programme against poaching, and we shall continue to do so.

Ethiopia

Mr. Baldry: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the value of food aid given to Ethiopia since 1985.

Mrs. Chalker: According to World Food Programme statistics, total food aid from all sources to Ethiopia since 1985 is some 4 million tonnes of cereals and more than 300,000 tonnes of other foods, including dairy products. Figures for the total cost of this aid are not available to us.

Mr. Baldry: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House the value of United Kingdom food aid during that time? Is she aware that all the reports from Ethiopia from such organisations as the Disasters Emergency Committee suggest that the drought in Ethiopia this year is as bad as, if not worse than, it was in 1985? Is not that position made worse because the areas being hit hardest are those where civil war is raging? Is it not true that there will be no solution to the problems of Ethiopia until the civil war comes to an end? Should not the international community, including Britain, make every effort to bring together the parties in Ethiopia in an attempt to end a terrible civil war which is costing many hundreds of thousands of lives year on year?

Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is right to condemn the way in which the civil war in Ethiopia adds to the terrible problems of drought suffered by the Ethiopian people. We


have been doing our best to help, and since 1985—the period under consideration—not only have we directly given more than 150,000 tonnes of food, valued at almost £23 million, but we have helped to the tune of £9 million through European Community help. In the past year alone, and additional to those figures, we have given a total of £3·3 million in bilateral aid to Ethiopia, and an additional £2 million of food aid through the non-governmental organisations of the European Community.
My hon. Friend is right to say that unless the civil war is brought to an end it will be difficult to get food to those who need it most—the people living in the rebel-held areas. We are very conscious of that and are discussing with our European partners ways in which we can get the food to those most in need.

Mrs. Clwyd: Does the Minister agree that, apart from wars and politics, the underlying problem of the famine in Ethiopia is environmental deterioration? In those circumstances, does she not think that there is some inconsistency in the Government's policy, especially as at the Hague today the Government intend to block an international fund to help Third world countries improve their environment? It is not even more glaring hypocrisy that the Prime Minister, later this week, will strut the world stage at the United Nations as the champion of the environment?

Mrs. Chalker: I welcome the hon. Lady to the Dispatch Box in her new role. I note that she has not lost any of the fire that she showed in her previous incarnation.
The hon. Lady is misreading what is happening at the Hague today. Wherever there is environmental degradation, this country will never take a position that will make

it worse. However, we will carefully consider the means by which we can stop that environmental degradation. If we believe that the means that are about to be deployed are unneccessarily bureaucratic and really do not do the job that we intend them to do, we will argue for a far better way of doing it.

South Africa

Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Government give aid to help the housing of the black population in South Africa; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Chalker: Yes. We intend to contribute up to £500,000 towards the Urban Foundation of South Africa's loan guarantee fund. The fund will trigger the release of about £230 million in loans from South African building societies for low-cost housing. Over the next five years that will result in the construction of 40,000 homes for a quarter of a million black South Africans.

Mr. Butler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that black people in South Africa have an increasing stake in that country? Could not the programme be expanded in the future?

Mrs. Chalker: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments. We must make a start with the Urban Foundation programme, to provide families having household incomes of between £200 and £400 a month with housing that is not currently available to them. If that programme is successful, as we trust that it will be, it is to be hoped that the foundation will undertake a further programme for families having household incomes of below £200 a month.

Ambulance Service (Pay Dispute)

Mr. Nigel Spearing: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government concerning the use of additional personnel and vehicles during the ambulance dispute.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The Government's overriding duty in the industrial dispute affecting the National Health Service ambulance service is to maintain an adequate accident and emergency service for the general public.
If action is taken that threatens the adequacy of that service in any part of the country, the NHS will call upon the services of the voluntary bodies, private ambulances and police. If the threat to accident and emergency services is sustained for any length of time, the Government will be obliged to use military ambulances and personnel wherever necessary to maintain those essential services to the public.
The sole intention of the Government in asking police and military personnel to prepare themselves and their vehicles for ambulance duties if necessary is to protect injured or seriously ill members of the public. I hope that common sense will prevail and that NHS ambulance staff will not take action that threatens the emergency services.
It is entirely a matter for NHS management to decide whether, and to what extent, to use voluntary or private sector personnel and vehicles to provide non-emergency services for patients affected by industrial action. I expect the management to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the NHS provides as full a service as possible to all its patients for as long as industrial action persists. I hope that the staff sides will quickly decide to take up the management side's offer to resume negotiations in the relevant Whitley councils to settle the outstanding issues between them.

Mr. Spearing: That is not a reassuring answer. Does the Secretary of State recall the trauma in London exactly a fortnight ago today and tomorrow, when the ambulance management diverted all 999 calls from ambulance personnel who were standing by with vehicles to respond to them? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that as a consequence, in Canning Town a Mrs. Lander of Berwick road and a Mr. Lambert of Fox close waited more than one hour for an ambulance and that Mrs. Lander has since died? Will he assure the House that wherever ambulance crews in the United Kingdom are ready and willing, and are standing by, to respond to emergency calls, their services will not be dispensed with, and neither will calls be diverted? Will he also assure the House that any additional personnel and vehicles that he may have assembled will be used in such a way that the services of ambulance crews will not be dispensed with?

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman will recall that the problems in London were discussed in the House about 10 days ago. I pointed out then that the unions had drawn up 14 points of their own, which were designed to damage the ambulance service. Some of them were put into effect in such a way that it was impossible to guarantee an accident and emergency service. As a result, for 36 hours or thereabouts the police and voluntary bodies had to

provide the service. Fortunately, on that occasion the unions also withdrew some of their points—in particular, their refusal to use radio telephones and to crew up emergency vehicles, with the result that the accident and emergency service could be restored. As the unions continue to say that they have no intention of threatening or withdrawing accident and emergency services, I hope that they will stick to that intention in all parts of the country.

Dame Jill Knight: May I assure my right hon. and learned Friend that his action in making certain that our emergency ambulance services continue to function has strong public backing? Will he do all that he can to pursue the ideal that those who hold the lives of others in their hands do not go on strike?

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Obviously, no one wants to use the police, the Army or any other unsuitable service to carry patients to hospital, but it is plain common sense that when industrial action threatens to go too far and puts the services at risk it is necessary to ask the police—or, in extremis, even the Army—to step in.
I certainly dislike the whole concept of industrial action in the Health Service. We all feel great respect for what the ambulance men do, and I think that it is high time that the action was stopped and the dispute returned to the Whitley council, where I am sure that it can be negotiated. So far, the management has made offers—including a two-year deal bringing forward some of next year's money—to try to help to resolve the dispute. As yet, however, the unions remain intransigent, and are taking action against patients in support of a double-figure percentage pay claim.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Is it not about time that the Secretary of State took positive action to resolve the dispute? It is no good his telling the House that it should go back to the Whitley council, when he is preventing the council from meeting the demands that the amulance men are quite rightly making. They say that they want to go to arbitration. Why will the Secretary of State not allow that?

Mr. Clarke: About 95 per cent. of Health Service staff have settled this year, and all those whose pay is negotiated in the Whitley council have reached agreement, with the exception of the ambulance men and a few other small groups.
The ambulance men are asking to be allowed either special arrangements by way of arbitration or a much higher settlement figure than other groups, and in support of that claim are pressing their industrial action, mainly against patients. I entirely understand why the management does not find such action in pursuit of a double-figure pay claim acceptable, when the rest of the staff settled for much less at the relevant time—last April. I see no reason why a settlement should not be negotiated sensibly, if only the union would settle down to talks and stop believing that threatening the well-being of patients will somehow gain them an advantage.

Mr. Michael Shersby: Will my right hon. and learned Friend encourage the negotiators to regard the ambulance men and women of London as providers of an emergency service for which they should be properly renumerated if account is to be taken of the often dangerous job for which they undergo substantial


training? Will he use his influence not only to bring about an acceptable solution to the problem, but to incorporate in it a no-strike agreement?

Mr. Clarke: The ambulance men of London are at present turning down a 9·3 per cent. pay offer. That was part of the April 1989 offer and is a higher percentage increase than the police received in the relevant settlement, and a much higher increase than those granted to most other NHS staff—including nurses, who received 6·8 per cent. I therefore feel that it is not an unreasonable basis on which those who represent the ambulance men might consent to continue to negotiate a way out of the dispute.
Unfortunately, at a time when the management did not regard the negotiations as being at an end, the National Union of Public Employees decided to turn the whole thing into industrial action. The sooner the union decides against continuing such action and goes back to holding sensible talks in which it takes a flexible line, the sooner the whole worrying problem can be resolved.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Surely the Secretary of State must recognise that progress will not be made if he keeps talking about NHS management as though holding it at arm's length, and adopts a Pontius Pilate role in his office of Secretary of State. Is not the central question—which follows from what was said by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby)—that of resources being made available by central Government to enable a fair settlement to be achieved? How can it be fair to say—and how can any hon. Member avoid skating on thin ice if he says it—that the figures being suggested are justifiable, especially in the light of the firemen's settlement? How can we say that, when we enjoy comparability with the Civil Service—and, indeed, when we read in the newspapers that we are to be awarded a pay settlement above the rate of inflation? How can that be justified when the Secretary of State will not talk positively about the ambulance dispute?

Mr. Clarke: The Government make the resources available, but in any sensible world it must then be for the Health Service management, through the Whitley councils, to decide how to distribute those resources between the various groups and also how to distribute the resources between pay increases on the one hand and the development of patient services on the other. It is wrong to claim that a Minister should be answerable to the House for the pay of nurses, clerical staff, electricians and ambulance men and should negotiate each pay claim in detail. A sum of money has been given to the Health Service, out of which it is meeting perfectly reasonable pay settlements for all its groups of staff. This attempt to politicise the dispute will undermine the mangement and the proper adminstration of the Health Service. It will also threaten patient services if people take industrial action, turn it into a political issue and get money that had been regarded as being for patients.
Comparisons are now being made with firemen. To make a proper comparison, one has to compare the pay of ambulance men with the pay of firemen after the two pay settlements that the ambulance men will get. They have to be counted before that comparison can be made. We are talking about the April 1989 settlement. If one wants to compare ambulance men's pay with the relevant fireman's pay, it is no good counting the current settlement. One has to look back to what the firemen got last year. Ambulance

men compare quite reasonably with firemen. The reason that comparisons are made with fifth-year fire fighters is because they are paid a higher hourly income than third and fourth-year fire fighters.
As for the pay of Members of Parliament, again we are looking at this year's proposed settlement for the House of Commons, which is tied to civil servants with London weighting. What we are talking about is last year's ambulance men's settlement of 9·3 per cent. I must admit that I cannot remember what on earth Members of Parliament were given last year, but London ambulance men have been given 9·3 per cent. That is not a particularly unfavourable comparison to draw with Members of Parliament, either. All these matters should be resolved by discussions. They cannot be resolved by strikes.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Would it not be reassuring for the future of our country if just once, if on just one occasion, one Labour Member of Parliament could be found to support the public against outrageous pay demands and restrictive practices? What does this say for the grim reality behind the facade of the new model Socialism? Labour Members of Parliament are still in the pockets of the trade unions. When will they start to stand up for the public?

Mr. Clarke: If any group of staff in the National Health Service decided to take industrial action tomorrow in support of any pay claim, the Labour party would give them its wholehearted support. That has been its consistent policy for years. The Labour party has no regard for patients or for the safety of the public. It has no responsibility on the subject at all.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Minister aware that there is overwhelming public support for the ambulance workers in their pursuit of decent pay and that there is a full understanding that at no stage have any ambulance workers refused to answer radios in respect of 999 calls or to respond to 999 calls? Instead of this awful gap of £60 a week between firemen and ambulance workers and instead of heaping abuse on ambulance workers, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should ensure that they are properly paid and properly staffed and that there are sufficient vehicles to maintain a proper ambulance service rather than threatening to bring in the Army to try to destroy the dispute in that brutal way.

Mr. Clarke: I know of no member of the public who has yet approached me in support of an increase of over 11 per cent. for ambulance men, which is the claim that is being pressed by the unions and from which they do not appear to me to be prepared to resile. Most members of the public would prefer the dispute to be settled by negotiations, not by industrial action. It is not true that the unions did not threaten the accident and emergency services in London. They did. They drew up 14 points that were designed to do damage to the service. Some of those points made it impossible to guarantee a reliable accident and emergency service. There is no question whatever of using the Army or the police to break any industrial action, but if the unions are so irresponsible as to take action that puts the safety of the public at risk, the Government must obviously put the police and the Army in a state of preparedness so that injured or desperately ill people are not left without the help that they need.

Mr. Tony Favell: Is it not clear that a lot of skilled ambulance men's time is being wasted? Is it not time, therefore, for us to start to contract-out the service?

Mr. Clarke: The managements of ambulance services up and down the country are having to make other arrangements to carry non-emergency patients. They are using taxis, hire cars and private ambulances and there is no reason why they should not do so. In some parts of the country unions are refusing to take non-emergency patients unless they satisfy some fancy criteria drawn up by the unions. It is no good for individual patients to be told by the union convener that their appointments are not necessary or urgent for their health, and it is quite right that managements are looking for alternative methods of getting the patients the treatment they need.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a private notice question, which is an extension of Question Time. I shall take two more questions from each side and then I shall call the Secretary of State for the Environment to read his statement.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Does the Secretary of State recall that when I was Home Secretary the last Labour Government were faced with problems concerning police pay which resulted in Edmund-Davies recommendations designed to make them a special case, and equally big problems with the firemen which resulted in their being treated as a special case and their pay being tied to the upper quarter of manufacturing wages? Is there not a case for the ambulance service to be treated as a special case, and if there is, whose job is it to see to it?

Mr. Clarke: That was a long time ago. My first recollection is that the then Government treated everyone who went on strike as a special case, turn by turn. But it was not quite so straightforward. It is not true that the last Labour Government recognised the claims by the police. They rejected the Edmund-Davies recommendations which were implemented by the present Government. The Edmund-Davies recommendations went out of their way to distinguish between the police and other emergency services and said that they were not comparable. We implemented the Edmund-Davies recommendations on that basis.
It is certainly true that the last Labour Government gave the firemen a special formula; they backed down in the face of industrial action by the firemen, and we shall not go back on those long-standing arrangements. The last Labour Government refused claims from the ambulance men to tie their wages to those of either the police or the firemen or any other emergency services and allowed their pay to go down compared with inflation in three of Labour's last four years. The last Labour Government let the ambulance men's claim go to the Clegg commission which reported that there was no comparison between police, firemen and ambulance men and that they all had some emergency duties, but in each case the emergency duties took a comparatively small proportion of their total time.
I certainly would not wish to emulate the record of the last Labour Government in regard to any of those groups. It gives no foundation to the right hon. Gentleman saying

that he has now suddenly decided that ambulance men should be treated in a special way because they are taking industrial action.

Mr. Richard Holt: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that although many ambulance men in the north of England are just as upset by the Government's position as those in London, perhaps an offer of 9·3 per cent. outside London might settle the dispute? Are not the Government and those negotiating missing the opportunity being offered by the ambulance men of solving the present dispute and entering a long-term agreement for no strikes in the ambulance service in future?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is an irony that the most militant ambulance men appear to be those in London who have already secured a 9·3 per cent. pay offer. Ambulance men throughout the country are being offered the possibility of a two-year settlement with some of next year's money being brought forward; discussions on local flexibility on pay, which might help local ambulance services; a re-examination of the deal with the unions entered into in 1986, because they are now discontented with the way that affects overtime; and generally an invitation to talk. We all wish to avoid strikes in the ambulance service. To the best of my knowledge and belief, NUPE and the other unions concerned will make promises but will not enter into no-strike agreements with any credibility. More to the point, they are demanding a double figure pay settlement this year.

Mr. David Young: The Minister's excursions into history may be interesting, but they are hardly constructive. We require a just settlement that will not only resolve the present dispute but will ensure that we have a service in years to come. That requires examining the situation impartially. Why is the Minister afraid of submitting the claim to ACAS? He may wish to see himself as Pontius Pilate, but the public is beginning to see him as Lady Macbeth.

Mr. Clarke: I know that I am not famed for my sartorial elegance, but I am not accustomed to appearing in drag. On the serious parts of the question, Duncan Nichol and his management team held discussions at ACAS, and made various propositions but were faced with total intransigence by the trade unions. I have already said that I have every desire to see the dispute settled. Health Service pay will not sensibly be resolved by getting a third person from outside to make a ruling on the pay of groups that have taken industrial action against patients. Countless Whitley councils determine the pay and conditions of different grades of staff. It is not fair to the staff if one group is given special treatment by a chap who is called in to split the difference because that group has been prepared to take action against patients when other staff have not.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that he has effectively given a guarantee that 999 calls will be answered whatever happens in the dispute or under any other circumstances? Will he use the present position to try to improve the London ambulance service so that patients are not kept waiting hours to be collected for treatment or left for hours


at hospital before being returned home after treatment, which has happened all too often as a result of bad management?

Mr. Clarke: The steps that we have taken should enable us to maintain an adequate emergency service should ambulance men be so misguided as to take action that threatens it. Obviously, I hope that they will continue to provide a 999 service. I agree that the sooner that the service returns to normal the better. "Normal" includes continuing efforts to improve the quality of the service given by the London ambulance service and others.

Dr. John Cunningham: May I apologise for the unavoidable absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who has a long-standing engagement elsewhere? Are we to see another premeditated management escalation of the dispute with the connivance of Ministers? Is that what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is asking the House to accept? Is not the obvious lesson of this long-running dispute the fire crews' acceptance last Friday of a deal of 8·6 per cent. after only two hours of talks and negotiations? Should not ambulance crews be given the same treatment?
As the Secretary of State gave us an excursion into history, does he recall that when the Prime Minister was the Leader of the Opposition in 1978 she was sending letters from her office recommending that the pay of ambulance crews should be treated exactly the same as fire crews? I have a copy of the letter here. If she believed that in 1978, why does she not believe it now, or has she done another U-turn over the past few days?
Why are the Government persisting with their mulish obstinacy when all reason and common sense point to comparable treatment with fire crews for ambulance workers or independent arbitration to resolve the deadlock? The Secretary of State has made some unpleasant comments about ambulance crews. If he is so convinced of his case, why is he terrified of independent arbitration, which ambulance crews are perfectly willing to accept?

Mr. Clarke: In 1978, the letter was written by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to a Government who were maintaining that there was no case.

Dr. Cunningham: No, it was not. It was written to members of the public.

Mr. Clarke: It was written to two members of the Association of Professional Ambulance Personnel, but at the time the Government were resisting any such arrangements. We have fought three general elections in which neither our manifesto nor that of the Labour party has returned to a formula for linking ambulance men's pay with the pay of anyone else. The only reason why the hon. Gentleman is arguing for it is that he believes that we should give in to a strike. I have dealt several times with comparisons with firemen's pay. This Government, the last Labour Government and the Clegg commission have all said that the job of a fireman is not exactly comparable. However, the comparison that is being made by the ambulance men's union is with fifth-year firemen. The hourly rates for ambulance men are better than those for first, second, third and fourth-year firemen. An arbitrary selection is being made.
I resent the hon. Gentleman's allegation that I have said anything against ambulance crews. I have not done so, today or at any time during the dispute. We have no desire to have a dispute with the ambulance men. We wish to see them resume their good normal service as quickly as possible.
On escalation, it is obvious when we look back over the past six or seven weeks that NUPE and the other trade unions have found their action ineffective. They keep finding fresh ways of trying to tighten the screw on the public in order to hype up the Labour party to give them more support, or to gain an advantage for their union. Every change in the dispute has come about because NUPE has decided on some new and dangerous action at the expense of the patients. I wish that it would stop that and return to the negotiating table.

Local Government Finance

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Chris Patten): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the local authority grant settlement for England for 1990–91.
I am today sending a consultation paper to the local authority associations setting out my proposals. Copies are being sent to each local authority, and are available in the Vote Office. The consultation paper summarises the various reports which will be made later this year. Drafts of two of the reports, dealing with the distribution of grant and the calculation of relevant population, have also been circulated. There are also exemplifications showing the amount of grant and the community charges which, on certain spending assumptions, would result for each area. In this first year of the new system a number of basic definitions and principles have to be set out, and that accounts for the large amount of material. It may help the House if I outline the main features of the proposals.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) proposed in July that the total of external support, known as aggregate external finance, for local government services next year should be £23·1 billion, an increase of 8·5 per cent. over the figure for this year on a comparable basis. That support comprises three elements the yield from business rates, specific grants, and revenue support grant.
To calculate the yield from non-domestic rates, I have now made a firmer estimate of the national non-domestic rate multiplier for 1990–91. On the basis of the most up-to-date information available about the effects of the 1990 rating revaluation, I estimate that the multiplier for 1990–91 will be 36p for England. That figure will be provisional until I have final information about the effects of the revaluation, which will be available before the revenue support grant report is laid before the House; but I would expect it to vary only very slightly, if at all. It also includes a small allowance for reductions in rateable values in cases where the initial valuations turn out to be high.
Using that multiplier, I estimate the yield from non-domestic rates in 1990–91, and hence the amount to be distributed to local authorities, will be £10,428·5 million. That estimate represents the total amount which I expect charging authorities to receive in respect of rates paid by private businesses, by the nationalised industries, and by local authorities themselves, together with a contribution in aid in respect of Crown property. I have made allowance for a number of factors, such as rate income forgone as a result of empty properties and of charitable or discretionary relief, and for losses in and costs of collection. The amount estimated to he collected from private businesses and the nationalised industries is in line with the Government's commitment that the yield from these sectors will be broadly the same in real terms as in the current year, 1989–90.
I anticipate that specific grants and transitional grants will amount to £3,182 million. Further details will be available at the time of the Autumn Statement.
I am proposing that revenue support grant should be £9,490 million. Our principal objective in distributing grant is to ensure that, in general, if each authority spends so as to provide a common standard of service, the

community charge could then be set at the same level in every area before allowing for the transition arrangements. My right hon. Friend announced in July that the Government consider that it would be appropriate for local authorities to spend £32–8 billion in total in providing services, an increase of 11 per cent. over the amount which, on a comparable basis, we thought it appropriate to spend this year. In order to distribute grant, we shall need to calculate an assessment for each authority of what it would cost to provide services locally to a common standard, consistent with that total.
The proposed method for making these assessments, known as the standard spending assessments or SSAs, is set out in the documents published today. SSAs replace grant-related expenditure assessments in the present system. In summary, the SSA for each authority will be based on an assessment for each of the main services for which it is responsible. It will be calculated using information for each authority about factors which lead to differences in the costs of providing services to a common standard. In this way, we can take account of variations between authorities in the costs they face. These proposals take account of recent research, extensive discussions between officials over the last year and the views of the local authority associations.
SSAs are central to the new grant system. Apart from the transitional arrangements, the relationship between an authority's budget and its SSA determines the community charge for that area. If spending is higher than the SSA, the community charge will be higher than the national community charge for standard spending, and vice versa. It is therefore important that the methods used to calculate these assessments should be fair and right.
If authorities were each to spend at the level of their SSA, the community charge in each area would be about £278. The final figure will not be known until we know the number of people on community charge registers. This figure, the community charge for standard spending, will be the benchmark for accountability. It will appear on the bill which each chargepayer will receive and will help chargepayers to assess the policies and performances of their authorities. In this way, councils will be made accountable to those who must pay for their activities.
The existing system of grant-related expenditure assessments had become over-complex and difficult to explain. We have therefore introduced a simpler, more understandable method.[Interruption.] I appreciate the fact that all these things are relative. As now, the method is applied to each authority, using objective measures of the cost of providing services such as the number of pupils to be educated and the number of miles of road to be maintained. There has been discussion about the factors to be taken into account and the weight to be attached to each, and the associations have put forward a range of alternative suggestions. In my view, the proposals that I have made represent the fairest judgment between the various viewpoints. I believe that they provide the best basis that can be devised for distributing grant.
In place of the 63 separate assessments in the present GRE system there will be 13 components: 11 covering the five major services—education, social services, fire and civil defence, police and highway maintenance—another covering all other services and one reflecting the financial costs of capital expenditure. In general, the method proposed involves fixing a unit cost of providing each service and multiplying this by the number of clients for


that service. Our original proposals were placed in the Library last December. For some services we have amended these proposals after discussion. In particular, in response to representations, we are proposing to include an allowance for overnight visitors—to reflect the demands that tourists make on local services—and to recognise separately the costs of flood defence and coast protection work. I know that these matters are of particular concern to hon. Members from the areas affected.
The consultation paper also describes the transitional arrangements. As my noble Friend Lord Hesketh announced on 11 October, it is intended that the area safety net will be for one year only. For the following three years the Exchequer will pay for protection for areas that lose as a result of introducing the community charge and related changes. In 1990–91 chargepayers in these areas will he expected to find the first £25 of any loss to their area, but above that there is full protection. Gaining areas will receive about half their gains in the first year, and the full gain in the second year. It is right that the new system should he phased in, but gainers will still see substantial gain from the start.
My right hon. Friend proposed in July two transitional grants to provide extra help for chargepayers for inner London boroughs, and in areas with very low domestic rateable values. These grants will significantly reduce community charges in some areas.
I have included with the consultation paper exemplifications showing the amounts that each area would receive under these proposals. I stress, however, that figures for authorities are provisional at this stage, and will change, though in most cases only marginally, when local authorities notify me in December of the number of adults that they have included in their community charge registers.
The exemplifications also show what the community charge will be in each area if local authorities spend at the same level as their income from rates and grant in 1989–90, adjusted for changes in function, and increased to be consistent with spending of £32·8 billion in total. It is these charge levels which it is intended should form the basis of the transitional relief scheme announced last month to help principally those former ratepayers, pensioners and the disabled who would otherwise face increases of more than £3 a week. This relief scheme will cost about £300 million in 1990–91. In addition 9·5 million people will receive help through community charge benefits. Many individuals will, therefore, see their bills substantially reduced.
I have asked the local authority associations to respond to these proposals by 4 December. I hope to lay the formal documents before the House in early January for debate later that month. The proposals amount to a substantial package of support for local authorities. The amount of external support has increased by 8·5 per cent. If authorities budget sensibly and spend in line with the Government's assumptions, the average community charge next year should be about £278. If they can do better, charges will be lower. But if their spending increases faster, charges will be higher. Local authorities are now answerable to their chargepayers for their decisions.

Mr. Bryan Gould: The Secretary of State knows that we and many others have long attacked the poll tax proposals as being inherently complicated and

unworkable, and fundamentally unfair. He and his predecessors have tried to deflect that attack by taking refuge in misleading generalisations, and false and unrealistic assumptions. I am sorry to say that we have heard no improvement today. The mixture is much as before and the more additions that the right hon. Gentleman makes to the whole ramshackle structure, the more unconvincing and unstable it becomes.
At the heart of the illusions that the Government have sought to create is the fairy tale that the poll tax average is or could be £278. That figure is a hopeless mirage. It has increased with remarkable rapidity. The Government's estimate in 1986–87 began at £170. By 19 July it had risen to £275. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, even in the interim, it has risen by a further £9 from £269—the true figure on 19 July because of the £200 million transitional specific grant—to £278? Does he agree that there is plenty of room yet for growth? Will he confirm that even if the figure were halfway accurate, local authorities could not be expected—indeed, he does not expect this of them—to meet that figure immediately or even in the foreseeable future? If that were the case, scores of Tory authorities would be pilloried by him as overspenders.
Will the Secretary of State confirm—and this is the most fundamental point—that the figure is an invention because it is based on an invention? He estimates a level of local government spending of £32·8 billion, but that figure is based on an assumed level of spending this year rather than the actual level of spending. Does he acknowledge that all the local authority associations, irrespective of political control or allegiance, agree that that basic error leaves local authorities £1·6 billion adrift?
Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the basic error is compounded by a further error on inflation? One assumes that the inflation rate has been calculated at the forecast of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of 4·5 per cent., rather than the actual retail prices index figure. When that is taken into account as well, it leaves a shortfall of £2·5 billion. Will the Secretary of State further agree that every last penny of that shortfall will have to be financed out of poll tax, as it is not covered by grant or aggregate external financing, and that means that the figure of £278 is hopelessly out of touch with the reality, which is far in excess of that figure?
Does the Secretary of State also recognise that his basic errors on the side of optimism are added to by the view that he and his officials have taken in making their calculations? They believed that they could safely assume 100 per cent. registration and collection. Will he confirm that everybody who has studied the issue knows and understands that that is hopelessly optimistic? Those errors invalidate the figure of £278 which the Secretary of State described as the "benchmark for accountability".
The consequences of those errors are serious. Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that for local authorities, with their obligation to deliver services, the errors mean that they are faced with Government-sanctioned pay increases to teachers, firemen and policemen far in excess of the actual inflation figure, let alone the Chancellor's fairy tale, and that they will have no option, therefore, but to cut services further? In view of that shortfall, will he tell local authorities this afternoon where he expects those cuts to be made? Should local authorities employ fewer teachers, social workers or home helps? Will he concede that, if his benchmark is so hopelessly wrong, so too are all the other calculations that flow from it?
It can already be seen that the transitional relief scheme, for example, will fail to help most single people, those who will be liable to pay for the first time or those who do not own or rent their homes and who will most need help. However, it will miss its target by an even wider margin because it proceeds on the basis of a ludicrously low notional poll tax figure. Many who believe that they qualify for transitional relief will find that they are paying far more than an additional £3 a week and many of those who will pay more than £3 a week will not qualify for transitional relief.
Is the statement not typically uninformative about the needs formula used, and is not the formula itself, in so far as we know what it is, open to detailed objections? Why, for example, are overseas visitors excluded from the overnight visit figure that is included in the formula? Does not the statement keep up the long and unfortunate tradition of telling us nothing we need to know about the business rate? Is not the 36p figure useless and wholly uninformative for individual business men until they know the effects of revaluation? Is it not equally clear that the Confederation of British Industry has been rebuffed in its request for a £2 billion reduction in total business rate? Will the Secretary of State confirm that in saying that the business rate will be kept at the same level in real terms he is using a figure for the RPI different from that used to calculate local government spending? Is it not an astonishing inconsistency to use two different inflation rates in the same statement?
Is it not sad to see the Secretary of State so bogged down in a morass not of his creation and from which he cannot extricate himself, but is it not even sadder to contemplate the future of local government and the services for which it is responsible and the future of those millions who depend upon and pay for those services when they, too, become the victims of this Government's obsession?

Mr. Patten: First, I welcome the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) to his new responsibilities. I can say without qualification that I hope that he enjoys his new job for as long as the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) who we hope has enjoyed doing it for the past six years.
The hon. Gentleman seemed to base his questions on the principle that, whatever the level of local authority overspending this year, we should validate it. That is not remotely the Government's position, and nor, I imagine, would it be the position adopted in the new-look Monklands, East financial policy that the Opposition are pursuing. We are allowing for an increase of 11 per cent. in spending by local authorities next year—over what we believe they should have spent this year. The Audit Commission has suggested savings of £900 million that local authorities could make. The authorities have made about £350 million of those savings, so they still have some way to go.
Our central support for local authorities will increase next year by 8½ per cent., and I think that that is a fair settlement. It is a challenging settlement. If all Government Departments received equivalent settlements, I think that they would be quite pleased.
The hon. Member referred to the standard community charge figure. That figure represents what local authorities

would have to charge if they were spending at a reasonable level. The figure has increased from £275 to £278 since July because of the increase in the number of exemptions. The hon. Gentleman is netting off the grant for the Inner London education authority and for low rateable value areas and so is not comparing like with like. I repeat that the community charge of £278 represents the figure that local authorities should have to charge to provide a reasonable service.
The hon. Gentleman referred to registration. So far registrations are going very well. I cannot guarantee that they will go quite as well as in one local authority area in Scotland where the registration figure was 106 per cent., although we can aim for that and we hope that registrations will be as successful as they have been in Scotland.
The hon. Member referred to the needs formula. As he knows, we have set out in considerable detail in the distribution report the basis on which the new needs formula is based. It is a simpler and better formula than the last one, taking into account, as it does, the cost of providing a service to the client and the number of clients. It is based on substantial research and lengthy discussions with local authorities, but perhaps in the next few weeks the hon. Gentleman will have suggestions to make about how we could modify it. He may, for example, think that we have been wrong to provide so well for the education needs of young children in Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester and inner London, although I rather doubt it. If the hon. Gentleman has any suggestions about how we can improve the needs formula, we shall look forward to hearing from him in due course.
The hon. Gentleman's main argument was that we were wrong to replace domestic rates, or, to put it more correctly, wrong to introduce the community charge. There is at least one thing on which hon. Members on both sides of the House agree the domestic rating system is inequitable and it should go. The difference between us is that the Government have advanced proposals for replacing the domestic rating system, whereas the Labour party, I am afraid, has not. The Opposition periodically make a proposal and then take it away again. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have read the motion tabled by the Dagenham constituency Labour party at the Labour party conference, which called the party's proposals "unacceptable electorally and administratively". I assume that those proposals have now been dumped. However, we look forward to a time when the Opposition will be prepared to make the change from domestic rates and also meet the challenge of suggesting an alternative.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that this is a very complicated statement, but we have a busy day before us. The Front-Bench spokesmen have taken about 30 minutes, I will give a comparable time to Back Benchers. May we have brief questions please?

Sir Hugh Rossi: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the London borough of Haringey is still at the top of the league, with a community charge of £554? In the poorer areas of my constituency where rateable values are low, the £3 threshold will be insignificant for my constituents. It is absurd that


community chargepayers must still make a contribution to the safety net. Is there nothing more that my right hon. Friend can do to help my constituents?

Mr. Patten: I suggest that my hon. Friend's constituents should press their local authority to spend more sensibly. I believe that my hon. Friend will agree that the main reason for the impact of local authority spending on his constituents is the level at which that spending is pitched by the council. I believe that our interim relief scheme, the transitional relief scheme, should assist many people who would otherwise be paying more than £3 a week in additional charges. However, there is another way in which we may be obliged to help individual chargepayers. If local authorities insist on budgeting in a ludicrous way, and if they insist on budgeting at far too high a level, we will have no alternative but to cap them.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: May I first point out to the Minister that he promised me a copy of the statement at 2 pm and I did not receive it from his Department until 3.10 pm, in spite of a telephone call. The seventh paragraph of the statement refers to common standards to which every local authority must adhere. The statement contains something new, based on the common standard. What is the common standard of service?

Mr. Patten: I apologise unreservedly to the hon. Gentleman for the fact that he did not receive a copy of the statement at the time that it was promised. I hope that other statements on local government finance—who knows, there may be some—will arrive with the hon. Gentleman on time.
The common standard is set out very clearly service for service. For example, we establish for education what the costs should be for each child and what particular factors should be taken into account. Similar considerations apply to personal social services and to other local authority services. The basis of those different assessments is included in the distribution report which I hope the hon. Gentleman will find helpful. Although we have reduced the number of individual assessments, I hope that we have not lost any of the necessary sophistication in order to produce a comprehensive and fair settlement.

Mr. Robin Squire: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the few months since the previous statement was made by my right hon. Friend's predecessor my constituency has moved from being a contributor to the safety net to a recipient? In the short-term, my constituents will undoubtedly be grateful for that, as indeed is their Member of Parliament.
Will my right hon. Friend not hesitate to use the reserve powers that he has in law should we find at the end of the first year that there are such big rises in the uniform business rate, particularly in London, that many businesses would be threatened if they had to face similar increases in the second year?

Mr. Patten: On my hon. Friend's first point, there are several reasons for the differences between the figures that my hon. Friend saw in July and those that he sees now. The most obvious change is that the figures that he saw in July were based on this year's spending rather than on next year's assumed spending. There are several other reasons for the change, including the movement from the grant-related expenditure assessment formula to standard

spending assessments, and the decision to ring-fence the housing revenue account. Those and other factors have a bearing on the figures for hon. Members' constituencies.
On the uniform business rate, we have introduced reasonable transitional arrangements. They include particularly generous treatment for smaller businesses, and we have doubled the threshold definition for smaller businesses. I hope that we will be able to ensure that the UBR is introduced smoothly and without some of the dislocation which my hon. Friend understandably fears.

Mr. Max Madden: As some Bradford schoolchildren are being sent home because their temporary classrooms are considered to be too dangerous for them to use, and as the Conservative chairman of the city's education committee says that £100 million is needed to put schools into a good state of repair, does the Secretary of State think that the spending limits for Bradford set out in his statement are realistic?

Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman will find that provision for additional educational needs in Bradford includes extra expenditure on education. I have great confidence that Bradford council, which is led outstandingly well by councillor Pickles and others, will continue to provide the people of Bradford with a better deal than they have enjoyed in the past. One of the consequences of that Conservative council coming to office is a substantial attraction of new private investment to the city.

Mr. John Lee: Despite my right hon. Friend's considerable charm and the transitional relief that has been announced, many people in low-rated areas such as Pendle will suffer substantial increases because of the community charge. May I make it clear to my right hon. Friend in the nicest way that my campaign and those of hon. Members with comparable constituencies will continue?

Mr. Patten: I understand the particular problems faced by my hon. Friend in representing a constituency in which rateable values are low. As my hon. Friend knows, we have tried to give additional assistance to cope with that problem. I am sorry that my hon. Friend does not feel that it is sufficient. I look forward to discussing the matter with him further. I hope that we can come nearer to satisfying him and his constituents.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, for metropolitan authorities, the figure in the seventh paragraph of the statement includes the extra poll tax for the police and fire authorities which is listed separately? Why are Birmingham citizens expected to pay a poll tax surcharge of £60 a head to pay for high-spending Tory authorities such as Blackpool? That will not wash, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that a couple living in an average-rated property in Birmingham will still lose more than £2 a week?
Given the added complications of this matter, which is made more complicated as the weeks go by, would it riot be a good idea to delay the introduction of the poll tax until 1991 and avoid the problems of the first year of safety nets, or, better still, put back the poll tax until after the general election?

Mr. Patten: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is yes. The answer to his second question is that,


as he will have recognised from the figures, Birmingham is one of the major beneficiaries of the move from grant-related assessments to standard spending assessments. The hon. Gentleman will surely have the honesty to accept that. The largest beneficiaries from the changes, in one year only, are the largest contributors to the safety net. That is the position that existed in July and it still exists. They were talking about a one-year contribution only. Thanks to the move from GREAs to SSAs, as the hon. Gentleman knows, in the long-term his constituents will be better off. Recalling what the hon. Gentleman said in July about the likely level of the community charge for his constituents, I am sure that he will be delighted that the figure now is a good deal less than he feared in July.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that this is not as bad as we had feared in July? Will he further explain the business grants, which look like a mystery wrapped up in an enigma, and how they will ultimately affect businesses because the business rate is particularly important in Birmingham? According to those figures—which we have had two minutes to look at while the Minister has had three months—it seems as though businesses will be confused about whether we in Birmingham will be reasonably off or two or three times worse off than many other areas.

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend knows a good deal about business problems not only in the west midlands, but well beyond as well. If my hon. Friend consults some of those representing businesses and business organisations, he will find that the 36p poundage figure is a good deal less than many were predicting. It enables us to continue to raise broadly the same amount of money as has been raised this year. I think it is a fair figure. As my hon. Friend knows, one consequence of the move to the uniform business rate is, on balance, a shift of resources to the midlands and the north. I hope that that will help some of the parts of our country that are so important to our manufacturing future.

Mr. John Fraser: Does the Secretary of State realise that, no matter how much he tries to stamp on the fuse, the poll tax time bomb will still explode in the Tories' faces next year? Lambeth has now had varying figures for the poll tax per head of the population, varying from £287 to £547. That is a wide variation. Which figure is likely to be true?

Mr. Patten: The lower figure would be nearer to being true if the Lambeth local authority spent its money and administered its affairs as competently as many other local authorities in London, such as nearby Wandsworth. Given the additional resources that Lambeth is receiving from the ILEA grant and the additional assistance it is receiving from the shift from GREAs to standard spending assessments, I very much hope that Lambeth will find that it has adequate resources to do a good job without penalising its chargepayers. Of course, that hope might represent a triumph over experience.

Sir George Young: Is it not clear from table 2 that some of the high exemplifications that we saw a few months ago for some of the inner London boroughs have now been avoided and many chargepayers will be

grateful for that, but is it not also the case that many will be protected by the transitional household protection? However, what will happen in year two, when the interim household protection begins to unwind and when many authorities lose the benefit of the safety net? Is there not a risk that, having secured low increases this year, there will be some high increases in year two?

Mr. Patten: I believe that I am right in saying that the largest single loss for a London borough from the unwinding of the safety net is just over £1 per week. We are announcing today that the interim relief scheme will be unwinding at a rate of 25p in the first year. I do not think that my hon. Friend will find the situation as difficult as he had feared. In the second year of the interim relief scheme, we shall still be spending about £230 million of the nearly £700 million that we shall be devoting to the scheme in all.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does the Secretary of State recognise that, because of the changes that he has announced today, the poll tax in Burnley will be £184 per head, which is exactly the same as the average rate per head at present? However, the majority of people in Burnley will pay more than they do now because they live in properties with low rateable values which means that the wealthiest people will be the ones to benefit from the change that he has announced.
Will the Secretary of State make it clear that when the safety net and the transitional arrangements are ended people will be able to see the full folly of the poll tax and how difficult it is to try to make it fairer when the basis of the system is totally unfair?

Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman should recognise that poorer households will benefit from a more generous rebate system than that which exists for ratepayers. We will spend about £2·5 billion on rebates and increased income support. The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members should not overlook that. Their constituents would suffer far more from the Labour party's policy—although I understand that it may not be the Labour party's policy any more and I look forward to seeing what it will do when it brings its next policy along.

Mr. John Butcher: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in some major cities Labour-controlled local authorities will be determined to overspend regardless of the methods by which they raise revenue? Can my right hon. Friend reassure me that he will not hesitate to use the expenditure-capping mechanisms as they will be the only protection for my constituents and for the poor constituents of Coventry where municipal Socialism is being built on the backs of ratepayers?

Mr. Patten: I recognise the problem that my hon. Friend has identified. I shall once again make it clear, as I tried to do in my response to a similar question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), that if local authorities insist on budgeting excessively, or spending too much money, we will have no hesitation about charge-capping them. I hope that local authorities will behave more sensibly, and I hope that their electors, as chargepayers, will ensure that they behave more sensibly.

Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Does the Secretary of State recognise that in the standard spending assessment there is no acknowledgement of the


needs of the under-fives? Given the additional duties that have been laid upon local authorities in the Children Bill by the Government, will he explain the extraordinary removal of the under-fives from the calculations?

Mr. Patten: We have considered general additional education needs. A range of factors have to be taken into account in the next assessment. I think that the hon. Lady will find that all aspects of education provision have been taken into account. I am sure that she will be particularly pleased by the emphasis we have placed on the needs of children in some inner city areas.

Mr. Barry Porter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark), before he left the Chamber, initimated that these documents are incomprehensible? He is not alone. I can read the bottom line. For some reason that is unclear to me, the community charge with safety net for Wirral is £371, whereas that for Sefton, which is a not dissimilar area, and is represented by the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn), and that for Liverpool, where the council spends like a drunken sailor, are a good deal less. Will my right hon. Friend let me know, in simple terms, how I may explain that to the people of Wirral? At the moment I cannot.

Mr. Patten: I think that my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities is better placed than I am to explain that situation to my hon. Friend. Perhaps the existing council has inherited a good deal of Labour overspending, which it has to deal with. My hon. Friend says that the documents are incomprehensible, but I hope that the consultation period that we have allowed will be helpful to hon. Members and to local authorities. Normally we would not make an oral statement on documents that were to be the subject of consultation at this time of the year. Normally we would make an oral statement when we agreed the distribution report, but, this year, since we were going over to a new system, I thought that it was important to make an oral statement to give hon. Members as much opportunity as possible to see what we were doing.

Mr. Derek Conway (Shewsbury and Atcham): My right hon. Friend's statement displayed marked clarity. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will recall that under table 2 the average rate bill for my constituency is anticipated at £255 per head whereas the long-run community charge will be £247. Although that is clearly good news for my constituents, can my right hon. Friend tell me what advice I could give them on whether that charge would go up or down if the alternative proposals for a capital value and local income tax system, as advocated by the Opposition, were to be adopted? [Interruption.]

Mr. Patten: I believe that I am right in saying that the figure for the hon. Gentleman's constituents would be more than £600—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman doubts that, he should table a parliamentary question and we shall give the answer. We would be delighted to cost any Labour party policy which it puts on the table. Admittedly that means that we would have to answer for a different policy virtually every month, but we would do that.

Mr. Allen McKay: Looking at the figures for Barnsley and Penistone, it

appears that some of the problems that we discussed with the right hon. Gentleman's colleague have been taken into consideration. After the safety net is removed, it appears that there is a £150 per head difference between the figure suggested by the Secretary of State and that suggested by our local treasurer. It is important to take into account the local problems. If the figures are worked out again, and if the same figures are arrived at, that will mean that my area will have to take £2·5 million out of its education budget, which it cannot afford to do. Is the Secretary of State willing to come to Barnsley to discuss the situation and to see for himself our exisiting problems?
The right hon. Gentleman has spoken about Labour party policy. I was in Canada last week and I had the opportunity to study how that country raises its money. It operates a federal tax, which is similar to our income tax, a sales tax and a tax on the capital value of property. That system has worked for the Canadians.

Mr. Patten: It may well be that the hon. Gentleman's advocacy will encourage his right hon. and hon. Friends to pick up a policy which I thought they had dumped, but shall find out in due couse. The major reason for any substantial difference, such as that referred to by the hon. Gentleman, between the exemplifications in the tables and the sort of figure he mentioned is the decisions taken on spending by his local authority. Decisions on spending must, at the end of the day, be met by chargepayers. That is the point which Opposition Members——

Mr. McKay: The right hon. Gentleman is missing it again.

Mr. Patten: If that is the case I shall look forward to further discussions with the hon. Gentleman. As for discussing such matters with local councillors and local Government officials, I am looking forward to spending a lot of time doing precisely that in the next few months.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: In the past Bassetlaw district council never received any rate support grant from the Government as it had a high concentration of industry which brought in a massive amount of rates. That revenue came from the power stations and two or three pits, which are now closing. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has taken the rateable income away from those massive industrial complexes to put it into a national fund, and that what he has given back to Bassetlaw district council and to the rest of Nottinghamshire in no way compensates for the loss of the rates that they receive from those heavy industries? Is he aware that the safety net contribution he has decided upon is far too low and that the people of Bassetlaw will have to pay a massive increase in their poll tax not because their authority is high spending—it is certainly not a high-spending authority—but simply because an enormous amount of income has been taken away from that authority by the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Patten: I believe that the hon. Gentleman will accept that Bassetlaw is getting a fairly substantial contribution from the business rate pool. Obviously I shall look at the specific figures to which he has referred. In all, however, the contribution from the uniform business rate and from the revenue support grant—the total aggregate external finance—should ensure that local authorities are able to provide standard services at the price to chargepayers that I mentioned earlier. I very much hope


that that is possible in Bassetlaw as elsewhere, but I shall certainly look at the specific figures mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I regret that I shall be unable to call all the hon. Members who wish to put a question. I shall call two more from each side. We then have a Standing Order No. 20 application to follow and a long day ahead of us.

Dr. Keith Hampson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the failure of the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) to launch the expected onslaught on the level of RSG for Bradford may be an eloquent tribute to his success in getting a rather better deal than the Jeremiahs on the Opposition Benches were expecting? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the result for the metropolitan districts, such as Leeds, is rather more neutral than option 3 for which they argued? I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend say that the rate for the unwinding of the safety net would be at a quarter rather than the expected one third. Is that rate for the safety net and the transitional arrangements, as that is critical for industrial areas with older properties?

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is right to point out that Bradford and a number of other local authorities with considerable urban problems have done substantially better than the Opposition prophesied. The safety net will be unwinding at a rate of £25, or 25 per cent., which ever is the higher, and the interim relief scheme will be unwinding in the first year to the tune of 25p.

Ms. Diane Abbott: Is the Secretary of State confident that his standard spending assessments are computed sensibly? One of the indices that the right hon. Gentleman has used relates to the proportion of children or families born outside the United Kingdom, Ireland, the United States of America or the old Commonwealth—I presume that in this context that means the white Commonwealth. If that index is meant to refer to the number of black children and black families, the Secretary of State should be aware that that figure will be hopelessly out. In my community, in common with many others, many of the black children and many of the black families are second or third generation British citizens. If the number of black people in the community is an index of need, why does not the right hon. Gentleman use an accurate index?

Mr. Patten: The hon. Lady has raised an extremely important point. When she looks at the way in which that assessment was calculated she will see that, as a proportion of the educational assessments, we have increased that covering additional educational need—that revenue is precisely directed at, among other things, the problem she has identified—from 11 to 24 per cent. of the total amount available. That is one of the main reasons why a number of inner city areas—I mentioned Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester as well as London earlier—have done very well out of the move from GRE assessment to standard

spending assessments. It is important that the hon. Lady's point is met, and I hope that I have done so reasonably well.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a statement which can only be categorised as magical. Can he reassure me that the bias hitherto in the RSG system against the south-east generally and against East Sussex in particular has now been eliminated and that proper allowance is being given to the vast numbers of elderly people in my constituency and the general area, to the large road building programme that must be constructed to join up with the Channel tunnel, and to meet the worries of the small business men in the south-east?

Mr. Patten: My right hon. Friend is right in implying that we have moved to a fairer system for his constituents and those of many other hon. Members. We have ended the hidden subsidy which, for 30 years, transferred resources from high rateable value areas to low rateable value areas. In the standard spending assessments, which we have set out, we have made particular allowance for labour costs in London and the south-east which should also be of some assistance to local authorities in the area. On both those counts, as well as the greater generosity of rebates and the interim relief scheme, his constituents and those of other hon. Members have reason to believe that we have treated then extremely fairly.

Mr. Jim Cousins: Does the Minister accept that it is staggering that, even according to the unrealistic figures that he has offered this afternoon, the average rate bill in my constituency is predicted to go up by 8 per cent. and that people in low rateable value properties, such as Tyneside flats, face an increase—even those affected by the relief scheme—of about £4·50 a week rather than £3? Will he have the courage to ask for more money for a better interim relief scheme and for that scheme to be permanant so that people who live in low rateable properties can look forward to a life of sense rather than the indecency which he offers?

Mr. Patten: I would not get very far by arguing that an interim relief scheme should be made permanent. The point about the scheme is that it should help us to smooth the introduction of the changes in the way in which we raise funds for local authorities. The main reason for some of the problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred is overspending by local authorities. That will be the main reason why, if it turns out to be the case, some people will face larger charges than they would like.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry that I have not been able to call all the hon. Members who wished to participate. It may be possible with ingenuity, for them to raise some of their points during the debate on the Local Government and Housing Bill.

Mr. Barry Field: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. No, not yet.

Teacher Shortages

Mr. Win Griffiths: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the escalating crisis in filling teaching posts in our schools.
The House is well aware that we have recently had a debate on teacher shortages. The Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts, of which I am a member, is currently in the last stages of preparing a report on the matter. It is an important matter, requiring urgent consideration, because on this very day the six major teaching unions in this country have, for the first time, joined forces to produce a survey on teacher vacancies which shows that the number of vacancies is double that which those at the Department of Education and Science think it is on the basis of the evidence that they produced for the interim advisory committee on teachers' pay.
It could be argued that this matter could be left for the interim committee to discuss at its leisure in time for the pay award next April. However, instead of there being about 4,000 vacancies, the figure is closer to 8,000 and that affects between 200,000 and 300,000 pupils attending schools today. The Government should say that they are willing to accept this new survey, which is far bigger than previous ones, and, as a result, remove the restrictions limiting the interim advisory committee on the pay award, which is about £650 million. Therefore, instead of taking action next April, when another full academic year will have passed, the Government can consider this new evidence and announce an interim award this month, thereby enabling schools to attract teachers. There are 400,000 qualified teachers who are not teaching at the moment. An immediate impact could be made on the huge number of vacancies in our schools if the Department of Education and Science were to act immediately to deal with this problem.
Therefore, I sincerely hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will allow the Adjournment of the House so that this urgent matter, which is of importance to all schoolchildren, can be discussed this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the issue of teacher shortages.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 20 I have to announce my decision without giving reasons to the House. I have listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman has said. I have to decide whether his application comes within this Standing Order and, if so, whether the debate should he given priority over the business already set down for today or tomorrow. The matter he has raised does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Points of Order

Mr. Barry Field: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you will be aware, the shire counties, with the exception of the Isle of Wight, are represented in this House by between five and 15 Members of Parliament. It has always been my experience that you, Mr. Speaker, have always been most generous in allowing me to put my point of view on behalf of my county. I hope that you will appreciate that when announcements such as we have had this afternoon are made there are at least five chances for the views of the constituents of every other county represented in the House to be made.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry for the hon. Gentleman. I have listened to what he has said but he will perhaps have other opportunities to raise this matter later today.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. On previous occasions, particularly on Scottish questions, you have allowed English Members to intervene in the contributions of the Secretary of State for Scotland on the basis that this is a United Kingdom Parliament. In the Secretary of State for the Environment's statement he alluded to Scotland, but you, Mr. Speaker, did not call any hon. Member from anywhere outside England during a statement which affected Scotland. Therefore, would you reconsider your views on Scottish Question Time?

Mr. Speaker: No. The hon. Gentleman knows that today's statement did not apply directly to Scotland. There were a large number of hon. Members with English interests to whom it did apply and who, sad to say, were not called.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a matter which is of concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House. You may remember that last week there was a dispute over whether United Kingdom military aid was being given to Cambodian guerrillas fighting side by side with the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), the Minister said that he had no further comment to make on the question. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), the Leader of the House effectively blocked that question. The answer is important because I am told that, at this moment, according to the Chinese——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is this a matter of order in the House? What has it to do with me?

Mrs. Clwyd: It is a matter of the question being blocked. It is important because a Chinese report states that 17,000 people have already been killed in Cambodia. The military aid which it is alleged we give is not the sort of aid which we want to give. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will assist us to raise the matter of the blocking of this question because lives are at stake.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady has had her say, but this is not a matter for me. There will be other opportunities for raising this important issue.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members whom I have unfortunately been unable to call will not persist in rising.

Mr. Chris Mullin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last week I tabled a question to the Ministry of Defence to ask how many members of the British armed forces were engaged in training Cambodian guerrillas, where they were based, what their rank was, when the programme commenced and what the cost was to public funds. On 30 October I received an answer stating that it was not the practice to provide information of this nature.

Mr. Speaker: Order. As the House knows, I am not responsible for answers to questions. That is not a matter for me at all.

Mr. Mullin: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a matter for me. I repeat that I am not responsible for the answers that are given to questions.

Mr. Mullin: It is.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman referred to an answer that he had received——

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: It was a blocking motion.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) wishes to have the rules changed, he must approach the Procedure Committee. I am bound by the rules.

Mr. Tony Banks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I realise that you have a difficult job. In common with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), I wish to point out that I have spent the past two hours jumping up and down like a demented jack-in-the-box. Do you honestly think that that time was usefully spent?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must make that decision for himself. I called other London Members.

Mr. Mullin: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not taking the hon. Gentleman's point of order because it is not a matter for me.

Mr. Mullin: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet.

Mr. Mullin: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will hear the hon. Gentleman, but it must be a matter on which I can adjudicate.

Mr. Mullin: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. My point of order is that British taxpayers' money is being spent on military aid in Cambodia. My understanding is that the Government are accountable to Parliament for the expenditure of taxpayers' money. It is not good enough for the Government blandly to decline to account to Parliament for that expenditure. Will you, Mr. Speaker, use your influence to ensure that a Government Minister comes to the House and explains what is happening?

Mr. Speaker: I have no authority to bring Ministers to the House. The hon. Gentleman had his say, so perhaps he has done the job for himself.

BILL PRESENTED

SECURITY INDUSTRY

Mr. John Wheeler, supported by Sir Marcus Fox, Sir Geoffrey Finsberg and Mr. Ivan Lawrence, presented a Bill to require the creation of an inspectorate to regulate the employment of uniformed guards and personnel in the security industries; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday next and to be printed. [Bill 214.]

WAYS AND MEANS

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND HOUSING BILL

Resolved,
That any Act resulting from the Local Government and Housing Bill may provide for sums to be paid to the Secretary of State in respect of non-domestic rating—[Mr. Dorrell]

Orders of the Day — Local Government and Housing Bill

FIRST DAY

Lords amendments considered—[Prince of Wales's consent. signfied]

Mr. Clive Soley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that during the passage of the Housing Act 1988 I raised the concern of the House about the number of amendments that had been tabled by the Government—more than 400. I did not think that that would happen again because there was considerable agreement that there had been an abuse of the procedures of the House. I am now asking for your assistance in what we consider to he a continuing abuse.
You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that no fewer than 606 amendments have been tabled, many of them only last Wednesday. No Back Bencher, on either side of the House, has had the opportunity to consider those amendments or to prepare any points that he might wish to make. I checked with Officers of the House and with hon. Members, and no one can remember so many amendments being tabled to a Bill. No one can recall such an abuse of the procedures of this House.
If I wanted to have a Bill of this nature taken on the Floor of the House, there would have to be a vote to that effect. Yet what is happening with this Bill is, in effect, a Committee stage being taken on the Floor of the House without any adequate safeguards. I ask you to draw to the attention of the House, through whatever measure is available, the fact that that is utterly unacceptable—not only because the procedures are being abused, but because Back Benchers on both sides cannot properly contribute to the debate because there has been so little notice of the amendments. I object strongly to the Government saying that only 70 of the 606 amendments are major. Seventy is bad enough in itself, but the suggestion that the other 536 are not important is based on their judgment, not the judgment of the House.
Not only have both Front Benchers and Back Benchers had difficulty sorting out their briefings, but in all fairness to the House and to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) I must point out that, for my hon. Friend, those amendments must be translated into braille. I have asked my hon. Friend to deal with these amendments today, yet he received them only towards the end of last week. All of them have had to be translated into braille, yet he is expected to deal in depth with them today.

Schemes for basic attendance and special responsibility allowances for local authority members

.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations authorise or require any such relevant authority as may be specified or described in the regulations to make a scheme providing for the payment of—

(a) a basic allowance for every member of the authority who is a councillor;
(b) an attendance allowance in relation to the carrying out by any such member of such duties as may be specified in or determined under the regulations; and
(c) a special responsibility allowance for any such member who has such special responsibilities in relation to the authority as may be so specified or determined.

That is an appalling abuse of the procedures of the House, which I thought had been satisfactorily dealt with after the passage of the 1988 Act.

I strongly urge you, Mr. Speaker, to exert whatever pressure you can on the Government to ensure that they never again bring a Bill to the House that is so ill-prepared that we end up having a Committee stage on the Floor of the House without any of the usual safeguards being imposed.

Mr. Speaker: I have sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am aware that there is a very large number of amendments. I am sure that his remarks will have been noted by the Government. All that I could do was to try to be as generous as possible in selecting the hon. Member's amendments, in the hope that that might help him and the House.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You are well aware that there is a separate legislative process for Scottish legislation. We have a separate Act—the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987—that deals with poll tax in Scotland. The Bill before us is riddled with amendments to the Scottish Act—an Act that Scottish local authorities are trying in vain to administer. Indeed, we are trying in vain to keep track of it. This is a disgraceful way to deal with Scottish legislation and it is a disgraceful way to treat this House.

Mr. John Maxton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The amendments that affect the Scottish legislation introduce four new aspects that have not been debated previously in this House. They have never been debated in relation to Scotland and the Scottish poll tax system. They have suddenly appeared on the Amendment Paper and, under your selection, Mr. Speaker, have been put in a group of almost 200 amendments,. Somehow Scottish Members have to try to debate the Scottish amendments within the context of a whole series of other amendments. Even at this late stage, is it not possible for there to be a separate Scottish debate?

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman is unhappy with the grouping of amendments, he must raise that matter with the Government.

Ordered,
That the Lords Amendments to the Local Government and Housing Bill be considered in the following order, namely, Nos. 12, 1 to 11, 514 to 581, 583 to 601, 603 to 606, 256 to 264, 328 to 424, 13 to 19, 309 and 310, 81 to 111, 20 to 80, 311 to 317, 112 to 128, 318 to 327, 135 to 255, 129 to 134, 271, 272, 278 to 280, 282, 269, 266, 265, 267 and 268, 270, 273 to 277, 281, 283 to 308, 425 to 510, 513 and 582.—[Mr. Chris Patten.]

Lords amendment: No. 12, after clause 17, insert the following new clause—

(2) Regulations under this section may also authorise or require a scheme made by a relevant authority under the regulations to include provision for the payment to appointed members of allowances in respect of such losses of earnings and expenses as—

(a) are necessarily sustained or incurred in the carrying out, in connection with their membership of the authority or any committee or sub-committee of the authority, of duties specified in or determined under the regulations; and
(b) are not of a description in respect of which provision is made for an allowance under any of sections 174 to 176 of the Local Government Act 1972 or sections 46 to 48 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.

(3) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by subsections (1) and (2) above, regulations under this section may contain such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for requiring a scheme made by a relevant authority under the regulations—

(a) to make it a condition of any payment by way of allowance that, in the financial year to which the payment would relate, the aggregate amount which the authority has paid out or is already liable to pay out under the scheme does riot exceed such maximum amount as may be specified in or determined under the regulations;
(b) to make provision for different maximum amounts to be applicable, for the purposes of any such condition, in relation to different allowances or in relation to different members or members of different groups;
(c) to make provision in relation to claims which cannot be paid by virtue of any such condition and provision for the payment to members of the authority who are councillors of an amount by way of supplement to the basic allowance where, in any financial year, the aggregate paid out or owing under the scheme is less than an amount specified in or determined under the regulations;
(d) to provide that the amount authorised by virtue of subsection (2) above to be paid by way of allowance in any case shall not exceed such amount as may be so specified or determined;
(e) to contain such provision as may be so specified or determined with respect to the general administration of the scheme, with respect to the manner in which, time within which and forms on which claims for any allowance are to be made and with respect to the information to be provided in support of any such claim;
(f) to contain such provision as may be so specified or determined for avoiding the duplication of payments or of allowances, for determining the bodies by which payments of allowances are to be made and for the apportionment of payments between different bodies.

(4) Regulations under this section may—

(a) prohibit the payment, otherwise than in accordance with sections 174 to 176 of the Local Government Act 1972 or sections 46 to 48 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 or in such other cases as may be specified in the regulations, of any allowance to a member of a relevant authority who is a councillor or to any appointed member of a relevant authority;
(b) impose requirements on a relevant authority with respect to the publication, in the minutes of that authority or otherwise, of the details of amounts paid in pursuance of a scheme made under the regulations; and
(c) contain such incidental provision and such supplemental, consequential and transitional provision in connection with the other provisions of the regulations as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(5) In this section "relevant authority" means—

(a) a local authority of any of the descriptions specified in any of the paragraphs of section 20(1) below, other than paragraphs (d) and (j), or in section 20(2) below; or
(b) any body on which a body which is a relevant authority by virtue of paragraph (a) above is represented and which is designated as a relevant authority for the purposes of this section by regulations made by the Secretary of State;

and references in this section to an appointed member, in relation to a relevant authority, are references to any person who is a member of the authority without being a councillor or who is a member of one or more of the authority's committees or sub-committees without being a member of the authority."

Read a Second time.

Mr. David Blunkett: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (a), in line 9. after 'regulations', insert—
`(bb) a financial loss allowance'.

Mr. Speaker: With this we shall discuss Government amendments (b) to (d).

Mr. Blunkett: I wish to support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) about the chaos surrounding the Bill. However, I wish to thank the Minister for his co-operation, within the bounds of the mess that surrounds the Bill, in providing facilities to help to sort out my braille arrangements. I am grateful to him.
Nothing that is said this afternoon can detract from the proposals for financial arrangements for councillors because their voluntary actions are of the essence in making our democracy work. We rely on such people to give their time at weekends and in the evenings, week in and week out, to ensure that local democracy is alive and active. As we said on Report, without proper arrangements for financial remuneration only the rich and the retired could take part in our democratic process, which would be detrimental to us all. Neither in Committee nor on Report did we have the detailed proposals that are before us today. They were introduced in another place and, as my hon. Friend said, it has not been possible to scrutinise as we would wish.
I wish to put it on record that local authority associations and many local councillors are relieved that the Government have been willing to listen and to alter their proposals just a little in line with the suggestions that have been made to them.
In Committee we debated extensively the issue of financial arrangements for councillors, and it was agreed by hon. Members on both sides that it was desirable to make arrangements that do not penalise those who genuinely undertake work—and so ensure that local authorities can go about their business in a reasonable fashion. There were differences between myself and the then Minister for Local Government, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), as to the role of elected members and on the way in which they should undertake their responsibilities. However, at the bottom line we all agreed that it is necessary to make proper arrangements.
We are anxious that the proposed arrangements may penalise the very people whom both Government Members and my right hon. and hon. Friends want to see encouraged to participate in local government. I refer mainly to those who are in paid work and who need time off to perform their local government duties. They must be made to feel that they are damaging neither their own nor their families' financial well-being. They are the people who would benefit by arrangements for compensating for financial loss, rather than be subject to a complicated scheme of flat-rate payments based on councillors' general activities, an attendance allowance covering a 24-hour period, and a special responsibility allowance for those undertaking at leadership level duties that obviously go beyond the normal responsibilities of an elected local government member.
It is making a mistake to proceed without allowing the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment to compensate for loss of earnings in respect of councillors who will otherwise be compelled to play only a minor part in their authorities or to resign their seats.
Although the retired or the wealthy who serve as councillors make a valuable contribution, we do not want to rely on them alone. In a few local authorities, the regulations will have no detrimental effect on their financial arrangements, and the cash limits imposed on those authorities will not affect individual councillors. Those councils' traditions and functions will allow elected members to continue undertaking their responsibilities without difficulty. However, many local authorities shoulder a larger burden of functions and have bigger populations. Some of them cover wide areas of the country, involving long travelling distances for those attending official meetings. In such areas, councillors may be required to observe traditional shift work patterns and are unable to pop around the corner for an evening meeting. Therefore, some councillors will be badly hit unless the financial arrangements made for them are not altered and improved.
5.15 pm
Although local authorities welcome the fact that the global sum available to them has been improved slightly, it is still abysmally short of the level recommended in the Widdicombe report. The figure of £42 million now proposed compares with the sum of £75 million that the Association of Metropolitan Authorities extrapolated in its updating of Widdicombe's proposals. The most worrying aspect of all is the cash limit on individual authorities. An authority could get halfway through the year and then literally run out of money, which would be absurd. I hope that the Minister will allow teaming and lading between particular authorities, and will be flexible in respect of their cash limits, so that the system can operate sensibly.
The local authority associations say that they are willing to monitor the arrangements with the Government to ensure that there are no wide variations in spending or in the criteria for claiming allowances. They are willing to co-operate and to ensure that the system works properly, but their role must be acknowledged and their voice must be heard. The associations will find it unacceptable if magistrates, co-opted local authority members, those appointed to quangos, and people still running residuary bodies—such as the chair of the London residuary body—receive salaries of as much as £55,000 per year, while being told that local councillors with responsibility for education, social services, housing, transport, environmental and leisure facilities must manage on sums that will damage not only their own finances but those of their families.
In the past, there would have been no ideologically division between the Opposition and the Government, and neither should there be one in the future. On behalf of people who have spent all their lives in local government service, I make a plea that we get this right. When coupled with the restrictions on the amount of paid time off from public service that will be allowable, the financial arrangements will be crucial in determining whether both Tory and Labour councillors in all parts of the country will feel able to continue contributing their time to their communities and to perform a decent job on behalf of those who elect them.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): In replying to amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 12, I shall speak


also to Government amendments (b), (c), and (d), and to Government amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment No. 554. In doing so, I may point out that the line references in some of those amendments on today's Amendment Paper are incorrect. On page 3709, the line references in Government amendments (b), (c) and (d) should be to lines 77, 81 and 86 respectively. Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 554 on page 3711 should refer to line 6.
Lords amendment No. 12 introduces a new clause to provide a system of remunerating councillors. We have come a long way since the House last considered that subject on Report, following discussions with local authority associations on how to implement proposals for the basic flat-rate allowance set out in the White Paper that formed the Government's response to the Widdicombe report. We made progress, but there was concern in local government that a flat-rate allowance by itself, without any attendance-related element, would be unfair on those hard-working councillors who put in most time and effort.
The special responsibility allowance can of course provide additional remuneration for holders of key posts, such as the chairmen of committees. However, it was pointed out that many back-bench members work long hours on specialist committees—such as those dealing with licensing and appeals.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), as Minister for Local Government, met representatives of the local authority associations in July and listened carefully to the concerns that they expressed. He agreed to consider any alternative proposals that met the Government's objectives.
To their great credit, the associations responded quickly with an outline proposal for a combined system of attendance and flat-rate allowances coupled with the existing special responsibility allowance. The local authority associations met the Government's anxiety about possible abuse of what would effectively be an open-ended attendance allowance system by suggesting that a limit be imposed on the total amount that each council could spend on allowances and that a restriction be placed on the definition of approved duties for which the attendance allowance could be paid. Those proposals form the basis of the new scheme for which the amendments provide.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) generously acknowledged the success of the consultation exercise, and I believe that we have got it right. The new clause to be inserted after existing clause 17 will require each local authority to draw up a scheme for payment of the three main allowances. First, there will be a basic allowance, previously referred to as the flat rate. Secondly, there will be an attendance allowance, as at present, but with the definition of "approved duties" determined by the Secretary of State. Thirdly, a special-responsibility allowance will be payable—as at present—to councillors with special responsibilities, such as committee chairmen.
The Secretary of State will be able to set a limit on the total that each authority may spend on the main allowance. It is intended that the amount should be calculated according to type of authority, and population in Scotland, and that it should take account of the number

of councillors in each authority. Within that amount, authorities will be free to determine the level of allowances, subject to any limits on different types of allowance set by the Secretary of State. That will ensure that a minimum proportion of the overall amount is allocated to the basic allowance, and will provide upper and lower limits for the special-responsibility allowance.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Am I right in assuming that that will prevent local councils from dreaming up extra meetings to obtain extra cash?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is quite right: there have been instances of apparent abuse, in which a proliferation of meetings, committees and sub-committees has been observed. The new scheme will end that, and it will cease to attract the minority of councillors who seek to increase their attendance allowance by such means.

Mr. Maxton: Has the Minister made any allowance for Scotland's island councils—the Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland? They have specific problems over allowances. Councillors have to be away from home to attend meetings of, for instance, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, but small councils with few councillors would not be covered in the same way as those with a large membership.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The attendance allowance will continue to be paid as part of the overall scheme, which may be adopted by the councils concerned. In addition, there will be a flat-rate allowance. If, however, the hon. Gentleman was referring to the equivalent of parish and community councils, the present provisions will remain more or less unaltered.

Mr. Soley: The Minister has again revealed the weakness of the Government's position, and the weakness of legislating in this way. What he is really saying is that he will cash-limit the island councils, most, but not all, of which are in Scotland.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I have already explained that the overall amounts that can be spent by each local authority will be subject to limits set by the Secretary of State. That was one of the agreements that we reached with the local government associations.

Mr. Soley: Am I not right, however, in saying that that agreement did not take the needs of the islands into account?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The needs of the islands were considered as part of the overall settlement. We are legislating for the United Kingdom, and each part was considered before we finalised our proposals.
The principal advantage of the scheme is that it will enable each local authority to decide on its own system of allowances, within the framework that I have described. Some authorities may wish to opt for a flat-rate system with no attendance allowance, as originally envisaged in the White Paper, and they will be able to do so. Others will continue to be able to provide for an element of attendance allowance in recognition of the differing work loads and commitment of their members. Equally important, however, is the fact that the scheme will make councils more aware of the cost of allowances and what they are paid for, as well as focusing attention on the timing, extent


and necessity of meetings. I believe that that covers the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman).
I will not trouble the House with details of all the consequential amendments that deal with the administration and application of the provisions, except to mention that the arrangements for travel and subsistence allowances, and allowances for parish and community councillors, will remain broadly unchanged.

Mr. Allen McKay: I may have missed something; if so, I apologise. Is the Minister saying that local authorities will receive a grant and will then be able to choose the method by which they decide how to pay councillors—whether they are paid a flat rate or, in certain circumstances, receive an enhanced payment? Will the system be based on the present payment of councillors, or on the "X thousand pounds a year" that is currently spent on allowances?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I shall deal with the question of overall resources later, but I think that I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the total allowable expenditure on councillors' allowances will be no lower than it is now. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that, within the guidelines laid down by the Secretary of State, authorities will be able to decide on the mix between the three types of allowance that I have described.
The five amendments that the Government have tabled to the Lords amendments are all minor and technical, but they are necessary if the provisions are to operate effectively. Amendments (b) and (c) ensure that appeal committees set by governors of maintained schools continue to be able to receive allowances under the new arrangements. Amendment (d) enables the Secretary of State to provide that members of bodies to which the provisions apply are to be treated as councillors for the purpose of the new allowances. Without that, members of the London and metropolitan joint authorities would not he able to receive attendance or special-responsibility allowances as they do at present.
The two amendments to Lords amendment No. 554 make consequential changes to ensure that the Broads Authority can be brought within the new arrangements. There is, I hope, nothing controversial there.
Amendment (a) would enable councils to pay a financial-loss allowance to council members. If he will excuse the pun, I am at a loss to understand quite why the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) considers such a provision necessary. At present, only 1 per cent. of councillors claim the allowance—only 250 in the whole of Great Britain—so it is clearly not popular. The main benefit that it provides over attendance allowance is that, for historical reasons, it is paid at a higher rate.
There must be doubt about any system that allows some councillors—those whose circumstances permit it—to claim a higher rate of allowance than others. Such an arrangement becomes even less justifiable under the new system, in which total expenditure will be limited: high levels of financial-loss allowance would be paid to a few councillors at the expense of those receiving attendance allowance. The new system provides for three types of allowance, to take account of differing requirements. We did not want to complicate it further by defining another

sub-group of councillors entitled to claim not because of extra duties, but because of background circumstances or business commitments.
The hon. Gentleman alleged that only the rich would be able to participate in local government. That is not the case at present, and the hon. Gentleman must know that the present financial-loss allowance, when it is paid, frequently goes to the self-employed, who tend not to be among the poorest councillors. I am convinced that the system that. I have outlined is adequate to compensate all councillors for the work that they do.
Let me say a word about resources. The local authority associations have estimated that councils will spend about £37 million on the main allowances in the current year, if all councillors claim their entitlement. In the joint letter in which they put forward the new proposals they said that this was a minimum level of resources that they would consider as acceptable for the new scheme. Against that background, we have decided that the allocations to individual authorities for next year under the new scheme should be worked out within the context of a clear ceiling of £42 million at current prices. We believe that this is a fair and reasonable starting level which takes account of the fact that, in future, expenditure on allowances will be subject to limits. We shall be discussing ways in which this could be distributed with the local associations, together with the other details of the scheme which are to be prescribed in regulations.
I hope that the House agrees that the provisions represent a great improvement over the existing arrangements.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: The Minister clearly does not understand how local government works. When he replied to the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) he made it clear that only a small minority abuse the system by creating meetings that they can attend. It is important to emphasise that it is only a very small percentage who abuse the system. The Government are therefore legislating for the 99 per cent. who do not abuse it.
The amendment to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) spoke relates to loss of earnings. The Minister does not understand that many of those who serve in local government lose out in two ways. They incur a financial loss, through loss of earnings. They are entitled to have reasonable time off to attend to council duties, but they do not have to be paid and a large number of them are not paid for the time that they have off work. Increasing pressure is being placed on the definition of "reasonable time." Many employers are putting pressure on employees who serve on local authorities and on those who undertake other duties, such as magistrates, not to undertake those duties because they do not like those employees having time off.
Furthermore, it does not help people's promotion prospects if they wish to serve on local authorities. I know many people who have not been promoted because they have undertaken local government duties. A good friend of mine was the leader of Burnley council for many years and he lost out twice on promotion. It was only when he stood down as leader of the Labour group and leader of the council that he was promoted. Within a couple of weeks of standing down he was promoted and became a


shift engineer at a local factory. The fact that he missed out on promotion for many years affected not only his financial position but that of his wife and the whole family.
The Minister may be correct when he says that only 1 per cent. take that form of payment, but that is because of the way it is handled. Local authority members have to determine at a certain point during the year which method of payment they want to have. When they have taken that decision they do not have the option of moving from one method of payment to another. That can lead to difficulties; it is not always easy to work out in advance how best to minimise financial loss. No Opposition Member would want people to make money out of local government, but those who undertake important public duties should not suffer as a result of doing so. We must do everything that we can to minimise financial loss.
A certain amount of time may be spent on travelling to meetings. Local authorities take arbitrary decisions on attendance times. If a person has to attend a county council meeting rather than a local council meeting, his pay for the whole day may be affected because of the time it takes him to travel to that meeting. Account should also be taken of working patterns. Some people may not be able to take just an hour off work, early or late, to attend a meeting. If somebody works on a production line, another person may have to cover his position on the line for four hours. I was in that position when I worked shifts. Somebody else had to cover my shift, or half my shift, because if I had been missing from my position on the production line the whole system would have ground to a halt.
Amendment (a) is sensible and positive. People would not be put at a financial disadvantage. We have a responsibility to ensure that people do not lose out financially, especially as it is becoming increasingly difficult to attract people to serve on local government. That is partly because the Government continue to remove responsibilities and duties from local authorities, but it is also because of the increasing pressure that is being put on employees by their employers not to take time off. The Minister ought to respond more positively to that point than he has done so far.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: My point relates to young women who wish to enter local politics. Local authorities have been very considerate towards them, but we cannot attract very many because often they have young children. If women have to attend meetings held at night, their children have to be farmed out to relatives, if possible, but in many cases they have to be looked after by child minders or baby sitters, who have to be paid. My council and, I believe, many others make no allowance for baby sitting fees. A heading on the form that local councillors have to fill in is entitled "Incidental expenses." They include car parking, but no mention is made of baby sitting fees, the payment of which would encourage young women to stand for election. Some of the young women who have entered politics are one-parent families, but we do not attract enough of them.
The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) was right when he said that in many cases promotion is blocked by local government service. However, unions that have been able to negotiate proper terms and conditions have negotiated 18 days, which could amount to 36 half days of

time off to attend to public duties. That includes justices of the peace. Many of the major firms and banks do not, however, do that. At their board meetings, arrangements are made for employees to have time off, but that is entirely at the board's discretion.
I have asked many times why no ruling has been made, as Widdicombe suggested. There is no Government directive that 18 days or 36 half days should be allowed for time off. Is the Minister able to say whether any thought has been given to that point? Will anything be done about it? Until something is done about it, only elderly gentlemen will be prepared to serve on local government.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I pay tribute, as did the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), to the many hundreds of hard-working councillors who enable local authorities to function. I know that they make great personal sacrifices, in addition to the financial sacrifices that some of them have to make. I am thinking particularly of late-night meetings which hardly impose a financial burden, but can put considerable strain on family life.
However, we believe that there should continue to be a strong element of voluntary public service in becoming a councillor. That element is adequately taken care of and respected in the scheme that we are introducing, which sets out as its guardian principle that allowances should be paid to ensure that councillors are not significantly worse off and do not suffer financial hardship.
Those councillors who have to incur considerable travel expenses—and hon. Gentlemen who raised this matter may be thinking particularly of the islands councils—will in future be able to claim travel and subsistence allowances which remain outside the scope of the new arrangement, so those Scottish councillors will not find that their allowances are limited.
The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) mentioned the role of women on local authorities. I, too, pay tribute to their important contribution. The personal and family sacrifices that they make are particularly acute. However, the hon. Gentleman's request illustrates the point that there are so many different groups who can claim to be special, and we could continue proliferating allowances to take account of different groups of people. We are confident that the three allowances that we are suggesting and the mix between them, which is largely at the discretion of local authorities, will take account of the circumstances of all the different groups to which he and other hon. Gentlemen have drawn attention.
In my experience, good employers are quite happy to allow their employees time off, and even welcome it. Certainly the Government encourage employers to be reasonably generous with their time, but I do not think it right that there should be a statutory requirement. The present arrangements are working fairly well, and there is no evidence that people are seriously deterred from local government service by the intransigence of local employers. With that in mind, I ask the House to reject amendment (a) and accept the Government amendments.

Question put and negatived.

Amendments made to the Lords amendment:

(b), in line 76, leave out second 'or'.
(c), in line 80, at end add

`or (c) any appeal committee so designated which is constituted in accordance with paragraph 2 or 3 of Schedule 2 to the Education Act 1980'.

(d), in line 85, at end add—

`(6) In this section any reference to a councillor includes a reference to a member of the authority concerned who, in accordance with regulations under this section, is to be treated as if he were a councillor.'.

Lords amendment No. 12, as amended, agreed to.[Special Entry.]

Clause 2

POLITICALLY RESTRICTED POSTS

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 3, line 26, after first ("with") insert
subsection (1A) below and any directions under section (grant and supervision of exemptions from political restriction) below

Read a Second time.

Mr. Blunkett: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (a), in line 1, after '(1A)', insert `(subject to subsection (1AA))'.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 and amendments (a), (b) and (c) and Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 9.

Mr. Blunkett: I am particularly concerned with amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 1 and amendments (a), (b) and (c) to Lords amendment No. 3.
We welcome the changes that have been agreed in the House of Lords. We welcome the changes to financial limits in terms of the salary range and the changes in the categories of persons to be restricted in standing for public office and political activities. We commend the way in which the Government have handled the matter since our debates some months ago.
We are concerned about the principle of restriction based on salary levels and the restrictions on individuals' political activities purely because of their membership of or earnings from a local authority. We are also concerned about the restrictions on those employed as political assistants, who, by the very nature of their activities, are hardly expected to be impartial. Under the Bill as drafted, they remain under those restrictions. We should have preferred only those mentioned on the face of the Bill to be restricted from standing for office in authorities and we reject the restrictions on holding office in a political party or being able to canvass, write or speak or in any way persuade others on behalf of a political party.
We recognise the value of the changes that have been made, and the alleviation of the worry and concern of more than 100,000 people, so we shall not press amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 1 or amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 3.
I give notice that we shall seek to divide the House on amendment (c) to Lords amendment No. 3. The idea of restricting out-of-work activities of members and officials of local authorities remains unacceptable. We do not believe that it will be possible to monitor or to police certain measures; nor do we believe that that will be necessary. The idea that people should not be able to be chairman, secretary, or treasurer of a local branch of a political party or be able to contribute to it in their spare time is not worthy of a democracy and we should strike it out. We are particularly concerned about the notion that people should not be able to engage in canvassing, writing or speaking on behalf of a political party.
The anomalies in the Bill as drafted are self-evident. The idea of using the Representation of the People Act 1989 as it applies to police officers is absurd. It states that they should not, by word, message or writing or in any other manner, persuade or dissuade any person from giving their vote whether as an elector or proxy. That is absurd. The idea that an individual cannot persuade people to cast their vote for a political party will lead us into all sorts of difficulties. If that is what the Bill means, it will need to be policed and monitored and we shall have to brace people who knock on people's doors, and, still more ridiculous, those who deliver leaflets through people's doors.
Perhaps we shall even have to monitor our discussions. Carried to an extreme, that could mean that people having an argument in a pub on a Saturday night could be reported by someone with a vindictive streak. However, it is quite possible that people who attend public meetings in a non-political way could be caught by the Bill because someone decided to report the fact that, although they were employed by a local authority at a specified level and fell into the category of politically-restricted personnel, they were engaged in persuading people in a way which might be construed as asking them to vote for, or perhaps not to vote for, a political party. Under section 100 of the Representation of the People Act 1989 they might even find themselves restricted in normal conversation. That would be ridiculous. If Conservative Members agree that it would be ridiculous, they should accept the amendments. If they believe that it is unenforceable, we should not accept it, but if it is enforceable we must know how it will be enforced.
The Representation of the People Act refers not to persuading people to vote for a political party but only to a person, who could be someone holding minor office, standing as an independent or engaging in any measure of political activity. If the Government are serious about this provision they should be clear about how it would be enforced. If they are not, we ask them to withdraw the Lords amendment.
The Government have seen sense and responded positively on a number of issues. When we last debated the Bill, many hon. Members felt that our democracy was at threat. It was not a major issue outside the House, but it would have become so. There was talk of having to take action through European Community institutions to ascertain and retain our democratic rights. The Government have seen substantial sense, and tonight they could make a substantial contribution to reassuring people outside by accepting amendments (b) and (c) to Lords amendment No. 3. For those reasons, we shall divide the House on amendment (c).

The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. David Hunt): As this is my first opportunity to do so, may I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) for his earlier remarks? To reassure him, what is now being proposed is merely to apply the rules that have applied to thousands of civil servants for generations to those who will fulfil the same role in local government. That is a wise and sensible measure, because all hon. Members condemn the abuses that have occurred. Indeed, many Opposition Members have told me that they do not support the abuses that have brought the system of independent local government into disrepute.
We are in a complicated position, because the nine amendments to which we are speaking were moved by the Opposition spokesman in another place, the noble Lord McIntosh of Haringey. In doing so, he announced that agreement had been reached between the Government and the Opposition about which posts should be subject to the restrictions on public political activity. In accordance with that agreement, I shall recommend that the House should accept the Lords amendments. As the hon. Member for Brightside said, the Opposition have now tabled four amendments to the Lords amendments. In part, they raise questions about which their noble Lordships expressed reservations, but on one significant point they would effectively undermine the agreement reached in the other place.
To set the four Opposition amendments in context, it might help the House if I were to explain the effect of the nine Lords amendments and the reason why the Government recommend their acceptance. The proposals in the Bill, with the Lords amendments, will ensure that all posts that are properly regarded as politically sensitive—not just those over a certain salary level—will be subject to political restrictions, and that there will be proper independent scrutiny of what those posts should be. Two separate questions must be addressed.

Mr. David Winnick: As the restrictions will apply to a number of people who earn less than £19,000 but who are considered to be politically sensitive, may we have a calculation of how many are likely to be affected?

Mr. Hunt: If I may, I shall move on to that point in a moment. I shall be unable to give a precise calculation, but I will ensure that I write to the hon. Gentleman.
On the first question of which local authority officers should be subject to restrictions, the Widdicombe committee recommended that the restrictions should apply to all officers of the rank of principal officer and above. At that time, after consulting widely, the Government took the view that that would spread the net too widely and therefore proposed that the restrictions should apply only to a much more precisely targeted group of staff. Initially, it was proposed that chief executives, chief officers and their deputies, monitoring officers and all officers to whom council functions had been formally delegated should be politically restricted; to that list, for separate reasons, we added political assistants.
Next, we proposed that restrictions should apply to all people in three politically sensitive categories—those who advise councillors, those who speak to the media for the council, and those who deal with the public and seem to represent the council. We proposed two mechanisms to apply those categories. For those paid a specified salary level or higher, to whom the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) referred, there would have been a system of contracting out. The restrictions would normally have applied to those with jobs on that salary level or higher, but if the employing council and adjudicator agreed that the posts did not fall into any of the three politically sensitive categories, they would be exempted. For those paid at less than the specified level, there would have been a system of contracting in. The restrictions would apply only if the employing council considered the

post to be in one of the three politically sensitive categories. As the House knows, the specified salary that divided the two approaches was £13,500
Three main changes are effected by the Lords amendments. First, one of the three categories of politically sensitive posts has been dropped. The two that remain are those who advise the council, a committee or sub-committee and those who speak for the council to the media. We came to the conclusion that the third category—those who deal with the public in ways whereby they seem to represent the council—was of less significance in local government than in equivalent posts in the Civil Service, which are politically restricted. I think that that is one of the most significant changes.
Secondly, the salary level that divides the contracting-out approach from the contracting-in approach has been raised to £19,500. We have further agreed that by regulation we shall link that salary to spinal point No. 44 of the national joint council scale; it will therefore be increased in line with that scale. Provided it can be adequately drafted, we shall provide for the disregard of nationally agreed local weightings. That change reflects a decision to raise the level at which it is assumed that a post's duties will be politically sensitive in the ways defined. As the hon. Member for Walsall, North said, that change does not mean that those in politically sensitive jobs on a salary below £19,500 will be free from political restrictions. If the duties of a post under that salary level fall within the definitions of the politically sensitive categories, the employing council will he required to apply the restrictions. If they fail to act when they should, the adjudicator can ensure that the restrictions apply either as a result of a complaint or on his own initiative.
The reason for that lies in the third main change, because the role of the adjudicator has been widened. He will now be able to consider applications for exemption from the political restrictions even if the employing council thinks that they should apply. Equally, to prevent abuses that may flow from the raising of the salary level, he will be able to consider complaints from anyone that an employing council has failed to apply the restrictions to a post that meets the criteria for political sensitivity. If he agrees, he will be able to direct that the political restrictions shall apply to that post. I must stress that the Government regard this safeguard as important to ensure that the criteria for what posts should be restricted are properly applied. It provides an important assurance to those who have expressed concern, including many of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have written to me about it, that raising the salary level to £19,500 would give councils carte blanche to employ political activists as long as they were not paid more than £19,500. The new powers of the adjudicator will help to ensure that that does not happen. In addition, a number of minor changes will be made. The adjudicators will be empowered to issue guidance to which the local authorities are to have regard. The drafting of the definition of those who speak to the media for the council has been improved and other aspects have been clarified.
We regard as satisfactory the agreement reached in another place with the Opposition parties on the arrangements for determining what posts should be politically restricted. We commend the nine Lords amendments in this group to the House. I regret to have to reveal to the hon. Member for Brightside that I cannot say


the same for the four Opposition amendments. However, I want to make some remarks that I hope will be of assistance to him.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Can the Minister clarify whether every officer who reports to a council committee, regardless of status, will be politically restricted?

Mr. Hunt: I have not said that, but I will come back to the hon. Gentleman's point in a moment. I have laid down the criteria carefully. The question of what restrictions there should be will go some way to answering the points raised by the hon. Members for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) and for Brightside.
The Bill provides formal prohibitions on those in politically restricted posts from being Members of Parliament, Members of the European Parliament and councillors on principal councils. It further provides for contractual restrictions on certain other activities. The consultation paper that we have issued makes it clear that those are, being a candidate for those elected offices, holding office in a political party, canvassing and speaking and writing in public in support of a political party.
It was suggested in another place that there should be two levels of contractual restrictions for all but those in the most senior posts. Although I am not immediately convinced by that argument, I shall consider it carefully.
The four Opposition amendments reflect, in part, the questions raised in another place by the Opposition spokesman. Amendment (a) would negate the basis of what has been agreed on the question of the post to which the political restriction should apply. It was argued in another place that there should be a distinction between the restrictions that apply to chief executives, chief officers and their deputies and those that apply to other staff. It was suggested that all politically restricted staff should be prohibited from being elected to public office, but that the other restrictions should not be necessary in the case of staff other than chief executives, chief officers and their deputies. We have agreed to consider that.
We have issued a consultation document which proposes that the restriction should be uniform for all the officers to whom the restrictions apply, as they are in the Civil Service for all members of a fully restricted group who are the equivalents of the politically restricted group in local government. We have an open mind on the issue and, as my noble Friend Lord Hesketh said, we will consider the case for a different approach.
However, I cannot accept the approach of amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 3 because that would exempt staff, other than the most senior, from not only the wider restrictions that we acknowledge are to be considered but from the basic prohibition on being a councillor in another local authority. It would mean that the only political restriction on staff other than chief executives, chief officers and their deputies would be a restriction on being a Member of Parliament or a Member of the European Parliament. I stress that everything other than actual membership would be permitted. That would go back on the agreement as to which post should be politically restricted by making the content of those political restrictions practically non-existent for posts other than chief executive, chief officer or their deputies.
The basic mischief at which the provisions are aimed is that of being a publicly active politician and at the same

time claiming to be the impartial servant of the local authority. I cannot therefore accept this attempt to set aside the Government's proposals to restate in law conventions which have previously ensured that there are no problems in this area.

Mr. Soley: The Minister must know—he is not naive—that the Government got into an indefensible mess on this and that our colleagues in the House of Lords bailed them out. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brightside said, that does not mean that it is legislation that we would introduce. The Minister has said that he has an open mind on one or two issues and is willing to move on them. I am delighted to hear that. But how on earth can he legislate for that given we are at the final stages of the Bill and at the tail end of the Session? Does the Minister think that he can do these things by an Order in Council?

Mr. Hunt: As the legislation and the consultation paper point out, there is scope for setting out the guidelines so that they are acceptable along the lines that I have already indicated. If I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly, he agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Brightside on canvassing. He is under a misapprehension. Our consultation paper suggests that those in politically restricted posts in local government, like those in comparable posts in the Civil Service, should not be able to canvass for political parties or for candidates elections to main local authorities or Parliament. The consultation paper suggests that a special definition of "canvassing" is needed, but if one were needed the definition of what is forbidden to policemen might be appropriate. That was the definition that was criticised by the hon. Member for Brightside. I do not think that it is an unacceptable approach.

Mr. Tony Banks: The political activist in one area is usually employed in another area, and the logic behind the Government's point is that if someone who lives in the area where the activist works were to see him canvassing for a political party that ratepayer would lose confidence in the local authority. How does that apply when the political activist will be canvassing in the area where he or she lives rather than works? Why is the restriction being introduced?

Mr. Hunt: It does not need me to reductio Zenosis as opposed to the hon. Gentleman's reductio ad absurdurn. The consultation paper shows that we are adopting a sensible and fair approach to the issue. We have an open mind as to the way in which we can best ensure that the objective that I clearly laid out, and thought was agreed on both sides of the House, can be achieved. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) referred to clause 1(5). Under that clause we have to lay regulations to determine the restrictions other than those on membership of councils, Parliament and the European Parliament. That is what we are consulting on.
Amendments (a), (b) and (c) to Lords amendment No. 3 in part exempt assistants to political groups from restrictions other than being a Member of Parliament or a Member of the European Parliament. We have now sent to the local authority associations a consultative document setting out our proposals for restrictions for those political assistants, other than those on being a councillor, Member of Parliament or Member of the European Parliament which are included in the Bill. The document acknow-


ledges that the arguments for restrictions on these staff are different from those on other staff. Here there can be no conflict between the duties of the post and declared political allegiance. However, there must be safeguards against such posts being used merely to support a local party organisation. For instance, similar restrictions apply to Minister's special advisers for the same reasons. Such restrictions must exist if there is to be a power to appoint political assistants.
Amendments (b) and (c) would exempt more junior staff from restrictions on being officers of political parties and on canvassing. As my noble Friend Lord Hesketh said in another place, we have agreed to consider the case for a less restrictive approach for staff other than the most senior. However, there are disadvantages in such an approach. It would make it much more difficult for people to understand what particular officers were allowed to do. It does not deal with the basic problem of a clash between publicly declared political views and a claim to serve a council impartially, and it would represent a significant step away from the traditional conventions on this subject.

Mr. Richard Holt: Will my hon. Friend clarify this point? Is there a limitation on the number of political advisers that each authority is allowed to engage, or are we considering legislation that will enable any authority to engage, say, 50 of them?

Mr. Hunt: I seem to recollect that the restriction applies to three political advisers per authority.

Mr. Holt: Is that three per party or three per authority?

Mr. Hunt: I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that it is three per authority.
I shall carefully consider all the arguments, but I do not think that the case is so clear that we should now rule out the possibility of uniform treatment of everyone subject to political restrictions.
I may have misheard the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg). I should like to clarify a point. I thought that he was referring to a member of staff who in any way advises a council on its decisions. I should like to make it clear that every officer who advises a council committee or sub-committee will be restricted, regardless of pay level.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Will the people who put together reports for the council officers who advise committees be included in the restrictions?

Mr. Hunt: My recollection is that the legislation applies to the officer who advises. A typist who types the document or someone similar much further down the chain will be affected by the restrictions only in the way that I explained earlier.

Mr. Harry Greenway: My hon. Friend may or may not know that each council chairman of a committee in Ealing has a personal assistant whose wages are paid by the ratepayer. That is a political figure. Am I to understand that this will be disallowed by the Bill in all cases but three?

Mr. Hunt: My recollection is that three political assistants are allowed per local authority. I do not know

whether Ealing council will attempt to find some way of explaining such a post as other than that of a political adviser. I should be interested to investigate the status of a political adviser who overnight assumed a different mantle. No doubt, through my hon. Friend's vigilance, combined with my authority, we shall defeat any attempt to circumvent the legislation's provisions.

Mr. Allen McKay: I do not agree with the Government's views. The legislation seems to result from shallow thinking and a biased view towards local government, and the Government have got it wrong. A chief officer may advise committees, but his advice will have come from further down the chain. Is the person further down the chain also debarred from taking part in political activities?

Mr. Hunt: Let us not get the matter out of context. The hon. Gentleman and I know individuals who work in local government. I have constantly been in touch with such public servants for most of my political life. The majority in no way transgress in any of the respects which I have outlined. We are well served by the high calibre of public servant at local authority level.
I remind the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) that the amendments were moved by the Opposition in another place to find a common solution to an uncommon problem—the individual who openly canvasses views for a political party and at the same time seeks to occupy an impartial position as a member of a council. It is to those people that the legislation is addressed. That is why I strongly urge the House to vote against the Opposition's amendments and to support the Lords amendments.

Mr. Winnick: The Minister concluded by paying a tribute to local government staff, and I echo his sentiments. There is, however, no evidence to show that the small numbers of people employed by local government who are politically involved do their job other than in the manner described. It is a slur on those people to argue that an officer who is employed by a local authority and is a member of another authority is not carrying out his basic function as a local authority employee in a forthright, honest and impartial way. If I had been a member of a local authority and were employed by another, I would consider it my duty, despite my strong political views, to carry out my responsibility as an employee impartially. Why should we believe that restrictions are necessary to cover someone who is a member of a local authority and is employed by another?
Like my hon. Friends, I believe that in so far as these restrictions are necessary—I deplore them—it is far better to accept the Lords amendment than the Government's original provision. The original figure of £13,500, to which the Government clung in Committee, was unacceptable. If it had been accepted, a number of local authority employees would have been barred from carrying out any kind of democratic activity.
I am worried about the legislation because those who earn less than £19,500 are to have their activities restricted, as the Minister made clear. When I asked him how many were affected, he said that he was not in a position to reply. I do not want to criticise him personally, but I should have thought that his advisers could give a rough calculation.


Those employees earning £19,500 will incur further restrictions, to which the Minister referred. People will be caught in the net.
It is unfortunate that these restrictions are necessary, but in so far as they are necessary, they should apply to chief officers and deputy chief officers. I accept the possible need to impose a restriction on those two categories. One can argue that it is anomalous to allow a chief education officer or town clerk to be elected to serve on another local authority. I accept that argument, even if I am not wholeheartedly in favour of the restrictions. I would not go further, for the reasons which I have given. A number of people who are not chief officers or deputy chief officers and who do not occupy anything like those senior positions will be caught up in these restrictions because it will be argued that they hold politically sensitive positions such that they should not be allowed to stand for public office.

Mr. Pike: Was not the Minister himself confused about how the people caught below the £19,500 figure would be defined? It is common in many councils for members of either the controlling or opposition party to consult the officer who prepared a report on a matter about which they are not clear, even if his is not the name on the report that goes to the committee.

Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend is right. As I said earlier, I am still worried that some who earn less than £19,500 will be caught despite the appeal system. Such employees may find that they are in the category, and I deplore that. The Minister must be aware that anyone who earns less than £19,500 is probably not in a position of seniority.
Teachers are not included in the category. I am not in favour of including them. Indeed, I am not in favour of the Bill as it stands, let alone of extending the category. The only explanation that I can find for teachers and head teachers not being included is simply that the Government assume that the majority of teachers involved in political activities, such as being a member of a local authority, will be Conservatives. I see no other reason why one group of local government employees is included while another is not. That confirms my original view, expressed on Second Reading, that the ban or restriction is politically motivated. The Government have a deep authoritarian streak which works on the basis that the people whom they do not like should be banned. Similarly, they decided to finish off the Greater London council and the metropolitan county councils because they were Labour controlled.
If there are to be restrictions on election to another local authority, they should not include canvassing for a political party or holding office in a party. Hence the Opposition amendment. It is crazy that a citizen of our country should he prevented from being elected as treasurer to his local Labour or Conservative ward. Is it really suggested that a person who comes within a politically sensitive category may not carry out his functions because he is a member of a local political party, goes to its annual general meeting, and has been elected as treasurer, secretary or chair of the ward, or because he canvasses?
I do not know the view of the Minister or of his hon. Friends, but, as a democrat, my view is that the more people are involved in political and democratic activities the better. In my party, and quite likely in the Conservative

party, we usually moan that too few people are willing to carry out such chores. Yet the Government say, "If you are employed by a local authority and you come within a politically sensitive category, you are not allowed even to canvass".
Like so many other Bills, this Bill in anti-democratic. I regret the motives behind the Bill and the fact that the Government have not shifted further. They have removed the figure of £13,500 only because they have taken into account the arguments advanced in another place and the possibility of an action in the European Court of Human Rights. Our amendment would be some improvement on a bad, anti-democratic Bill, and I urge my hon. Friends to support it.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I welcome the remarks of my hon. Friend the Minister. He made a proper distinction between elected councillors and officers of a council. Too much and too often recently the line dividing the work of councillors and of council officers has become blurred. Full-time employees of one authority elected to another have been allowed to spend almost all their office hours on politics. There should be a distinction between councillors who are elected to lay down a local authority's policy and officers who are employed to carry it out. The Labour party, both locally and nationally, seems to believe that councillors should work full time and direct the minutiae of council policy. I disagree. It is for council officers to carry out the policy laid down by councillors and the Lords amendment will ensure that that happens.
It must be seriously wrong for council chairmen to have political assistants. In Ealing, each committee chairman has a personal assistant who is effectively a political assistant. Many think that the chairman's aide is there to make sure that the chairman does what the party wants him to do.

Mr. Winnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Greenway: No.

Mr. Winnick: rose——

Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman has made a speech. I have only just begun.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose——

Mr. Winnick: rose——

Mr. Greenway: No, I am not giving way.

Mr. Banks: Chicken.

Mr. Greenway: Chicken is almost a non-parliamentary word.

Mr. Winnick: rose——

Mr. Greenway: No. I have not yet made my point.

Mr. Soley: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I call Mr. Greenway.

Mr. Greenway: I am simply saying that it is absurd and wrong for chairmen of local authority committees to have personal assistants who are really politicians at the behest of the local Left-wing hierarchy, in the case of Ealing, to see that he does what the hierarchy wishes. I am not saying that it is corrupt.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose——

Mr. Winnick: rose——

Mr. Greenway: In Ealing, between eight and 13 Labour councillors would certainly have been caught by the £13,500 cut-off and prevented them from standing for re-election—in which they would probably have been unsuccessful—to Ealing council next year because they are employees of other authorities. There is political unfairness in the way in which councillors who are employees of other authorities operate. In many cases they seem to be given leave by the council employers to work full time on council work in Ealing.
Thirty years ago I was at the Oxford university settlement in Bethnal Green. Poplar councillors were employed by Stepney council, Stepney councillors were employed by Bethnal Green council, Bethnal Green councillors were employed by Poplar council, and so on. In effect, the councillors worked full time in politics. That was grossly absurd because the Labour party had 100 per cent. control of each council.

Mr. Lofthouse: The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the Minister has eight personal advisers in the Box. Does he agree that there are quite a few distinguished hon. Members who have been politically active while employed by local government and who would never have been able to become Members of Parliament under this legislation? Does the Minister also agree that local government officers are as honourable as headmasters of schools who are politically active?

Mr. Greenway: I know that the hon. Gentleman is an honourable man and his comment is interesting. However, the Minister's advisers are not apparatchiks in the same way as the political or personal assistants to Ealing council chairmen, to whom I have referred—or at least they do not look like apparatchiks. I was prevented from becoming a councillor when I was a young teacher, although I would have liked to have been one, because teachers were not then allowed to stand for election to their local authority, and they are not allowed now.

Mr. Maxton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Greenway: No, because I want to be brief.
Some councils are thought to appoint officers whom they believe will drive through a political point of view in their work as council officers. That is a serious problem because, like civil servants, council officers should not drive through political objectives for themselves. They should drive through policy objectives laid down by the council and should not pursue their own political aims, so they should never be appointed for such reasons. The Bill will help to ensure that that does not happen.
Another problem is that some local government officers who speak to the media are in a sensitive position, as my hon. Friend the Minister said. It can soon happen that information put out to the media, electors, ratepayers or community charge payers becomes propaganda. It is right to ensure that anybody who deals with the media or who distributes information from councils is above reproach in political terms.
I say that with particular feeling because a magazine called "Voices", which is a highly political document, has been produced in Ealing, financed by the ratepayers of

Ealing. It is wrong because it is merely Socialist propaganda. The leaflet that Ealing council produced on the community charge—and presumably it was produced by officers with access to the media—was incorrectly called "Poll Tax Information", and was highly prejudiced political propaganda. The amendments will rightly stop that. If people do not have the self-restraint or integrity to stop such practices themselves, it is right—although sad —that Parliament should do so for them.
Council officers must be appointed on merit, regardless of political beliefs, sex, or ethnic background, but it is clear that that is not always the case. The Bill will ensure that such corruption ceases. Many of us are sorry that the Government have raised the cut-off point from £13,500 to £19,500, although we understand their reasons. Many of us fear that many council officers below the level of £19,500 will slip through the net into political activity and it will be important to ensure that they do not. However, I honour local government employees in general for the marvellous work that they do.

Mr. John McAllion: The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) expressed concern that press officers in particular, who are responsible for issuing information, may become involved in issuing party propaganda. Will the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to intervene and to say whether he thinks that Mr. Bernard Ingham is beyond political reproach for the way in which he issues information on behalf of the Prime Minister's Office? Time and again the information he has issued has been pure political propaganda. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he thinks that Mr. Bernard Ingham is above reproach in terms of allowing political propaganda to interfere with his work as press officer for the Prime Minister's Office? The hon. Gentleman seems to be remaining in a sedentary position because he knows what the truth is.

Mr. Greenway: The Opposition make so many attacks on that gentleman that they have lost all credibility.

Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman obviously has no defence to offer for that individual.
I welcome the concessions in Lords amendment No. 3 and the change in salary level from £13,500 to £19,500. I also welcome the Minister's assurance that he will recommend the amendment to the House. I was interested to hear what the Minister said about politically sensitive posts remaining under the salary level of £19,500. I remember that in Committee the Minister who was then responsible for the Bill and who has now moved on to pastures new as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food went to great lengths to try to justify the figure of £13,500. He gave the Committee two examples of high salary earners and low salary earners who would be affected. For his example of a low salary earner, he referred to a council officer in his own constituency who was responsible for allocating houses in the area. The Minister said:
It is important that he should not have political affiliations because his decisions must be clearly seen to be on the basis of priority … When decisions have to be taken and advice given to the authority about allocation, it is easier if the political affiliations of the person taking that decision are not known. He cannot then be accused of favouring someone who has a housing priority, even if they have the same political affiliations."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 7 March 1989; c. 188.]


It seemed a strange principle to apply. The Minister seemed to be saying that it was unacceptable for an officer to allocate houses and at the same time to have open political affiliations, but that it was wholly acceptable to do so if those political affiliations remained secret. It seemed that if the people in a particular area did not know what was going on, they had no need to worry. That has a masonic ring, and I hope that the Minister does not extend that principle.
Will the Minister tell us whether council officers who are responsible for allocating houses will continue to be regarded as being in politically restricted posts, as the former Minister suggested they should be? Their salary level will be well below £19,500, so it is important that the Minister clarifies whether such officers will be affected by the politically restricted posts legislation.
I was interested to hear the Minister say that the reason for the Bill was the extent of the abuses which had brought the whole system of local government into disrepute, and that point was made many times in Committee. If such abuses exist, they are alleged to exist only in England and Wales, and have never existed in Scotland to my knowledge. In Committee, I tabled an amendment that sought to exempt Scotland from the effects of the provision. Twin tracking has never been a concern in Scotland. I and my hon. Friends believe that and Widdicombe said that the traditional practices survive more readily in Scotland than in England or Wales.
The research study upon which Widdicombe was based said that
the professional adviser model of officer-member relations remains dominant in Scottish local government".
The research study also pointed out:
Councillors expect, seek and generally receive
politically neutral advice and said that, in general, relationships in Scotland are satisfactory and in no need of legislation such as this. The Government are trying to apply a remedy for a perceived disease in England and Wales and they have no basis for arguing that that remedy should also apply in Scotland. That is why I should have been pleased had Scotland not been included in the Bill.
If anything, Scotland suffers from the opposite of the problem with which the Bill seeks to deal. We suffer not as a result of council officers' openly saying where their political affiliation lies but from officers not telling us where their affiliation lies, especially when that affiliation interferes with the advice that they give to elected councillors. I cite the case of compulsory competitive tendering because it has recently caused anger in my own area, the Tayside regional council area, where a contract was lost to an outside tenderer. Everyone who has been involved in the process has said that, if the in-house tenderer is to win, it is most important that elected members' trade unions representing the work force and council officers work closely together and show the same commitment to winning the contract. Council officers do not say what their political affiliation is but often by their actions and by failing to show such commitment, they undermine the in-house tender and make it possible for the contract to go to an outsider tenderer. That often happens without our being told the real political affiliation of the council officers and whether that affiliation is interfering with the advice that they give to the elected representatives.
Some other council officers will remain caught by the politically restricted posts provisions. They include press

officers. Press officers are professional council officers and they act in a wholly professional manner. They impart information concerning democratically reached council decisions, publicise statements made by elected conveners on council committees, and so on. The Government have decided to reward them for doing a thoroughly professional job by designating press officer a politically restricted post and disallowing press officers from standing for political office or taking part in political activity—even from canvassing or taking part in the democratic process in any way.
Our amendment (c) to Lords amendment No. 3, on which we shall divide the House, would at least restore some democratic rights to council officers. It is important that those Conservative Members who take these matters seriously should vote with the Opposition. After all, we are dealing with a serious infringement of civil liberties.
The Minister said that the Lords amendments represented a sensible and fair approach on the part of the Government. Although it is true that the Government are taking a more sensible and fair approach than they did in Committee, the principle of politically restricted posts remains deeply objectionable on democratic grounds. I remind the Minister that, perhaps for very good reasons, Germany introduced the concept of politically restricted posts in the aftermath of the second world war. The Germans tried to exclude from public service those extremists who were opposed to the constitution and to the very notion of public service. They did that to deal with the Nazi party and its supporters. Unfortunately, in practice, Berufsverbot has been used not against Nazis but against those who subscribe to Left-wing ideologies. Since 1972, there have been 3½ million political screenings in Germany, several thousands of hearings and 1,250 rejections of applicants for jobs in the public service. There have also been 300 forced retirements. The orginal concept of Berufsverbot has been abused for political ends just as the principle of politically restricted posts will be open to abuse for political ends. It should be opposed, and the House should accept the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends.

Mr. Tony Banks: There has been more than the usual whiff of hypocrisy on the Conservative Benches this evening. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) talked about propaganda. It comes ill from the Conservative party these days to talk about information as propaganda or propaganda as information, given the publications that now emerge from the Ministries almost daily. The last one that I saw was published by the Central Office of Information and dealt with the Conservative Government's approach to South Africa. It was printed in blue and there was a picture of the Prime Minister on every single page. That is the sort of publication that we believe should be paid for by Conservative Central Office and not by the hard-pressed taxpayer, but the hon. Member for Ealing, North would never say that.
6.45 pm
Much of the information that the Government publish about privatisation—at a cost of about £150 million of taxpayers' money—in so-called public information schemes is no more than propaganda to advance the Conservative party's cause. We do not need lectures from the hon. Member for Ealing, North about propaganda and information because the Government are past masters


at squandering taxpayers' money to push the Government's cause. It will do them no good because the public see through these thinly disguised activities and will boot them from office in the next couple of years or so.
Let me say to the Minister, however, that I welcome his appointment. Perhaps he will take my congratulations to cover next week's ministerial reshuffle as well, as that will save me from repeating myself.
In Committee, I made it clear that I was not in favour of twin tracking. I speak as one who was in local authority service as an elected member for 16 years. But the principle that we are discussing goes much further than twin tracking. I objected to twin tracking not so much because I was concerned about whether the advice given would be impartial but because of the pressure of time on the individual concerned.
My solution was to suggest that if we approached local government responsibilities seriously and remunerated councillors so that they were not required to seek jobs with other local authorities—which might be broadly sympathetic because of the sacrifices that councillors have to make—we might prevent it from happening. It is difficult to get a job or hold a job when one is acting as a councillor, but if we were prepared to admit that we have local government on the cheap and to make positive suggestions about remunerating councillors, the twin tracking that occurs in some parts of England and Wales would cease to exist.
The Bill goes much further, however. We are talking about placing restrictions on low-level political activity such as canvassing or holding political office. The Minister spoke as though political activity and involvement with a political party were in some way criminal. If that is so, this is a home for recidivists. I do not understand how the Minister can say that being involved in cavassing or holding political office disbars someone from being an effective local government officer. That person is not in the same position as someone who works for one local authority and advises another.
As I understand it, Conservative Members would argue—I do not accept the argument—that public confidence is diminished if people receive advice from or make contact with a supposedly impartial council officer knowing that that officer is also an active member of a political party working on or representing another council somewhere else. One can almost go along with that argument a little way in the case of twin tracking, but canvassing and holding political office are completely different matters. The political activist does those things in the area in which he or she lives and not in the area in which he or she works. There is no reason why anyone who meets a political activist on the doorstep or within the local party should have their feelings about the local authority diminished, because that is not the same local authority. It is another local authority. Obviously if a council officer were canvassing and held a political office in the area where he or she worked, there might be something in it. However, the proposals in the Bill amount to an attack on the democratic civil rights of thousands of local government officers around the country. The proposal goes too far. The Minister has said that the matter will be reconsidered, but I want to know what he intends to do.
With regard to holding office, the consultative paper states:
The concept of 'holding office' seems sufficiently self-explanatory not to need any special definition.

That is not so. Does it really include being the social secretary? If one holds that office, is one excluded from being a councillor? Would the organiser of the revolutionary jumble sales that we have from time to time in the Labour party be excluded? In my constituency there is a premises officer and an assistant premises officer. If they happen to work for another local authority, will they be excluded?
The proposal really is a reduction to the absurd, as the Minister said. I am not reducing it to the absurd; the Minister is doing that by accepting the absurdity that
The concept of 'holding office' seems sufficiently self-explanatory not to need any special definition.
We need a definition or the concept will be so imprecise as to be meaningless.
The consultative document also states:
Canvassing seems sufficiently self-explanatory not to require a special definition.
I am beginning to get the feeling that, because it was too difficult for the people who drew up the draft code to provide any definitions, they decided that everything was self-explanatory. That is a rather neat way of surmounting the problem.
In many cases canvassing is an anonymous activity. I try to make it as anonymous as I possibly can when I am canvassing in the London borough of Newham. I must be honest about it, I do not like canvassing for myself. I do not like trying to sell myself from door to door like a suitcase full of Kleenezee brushes. However, I find many ready takers. I normally knock on the door and say, "Excuse me, very sorry to disturb you, but I am from Newham, North-West Labour party. I hope you will be voting Labour in the next election." If I am asked, "Are you Tony Banks?" I look at them very carefully and decide whether the question is asked in an amicable or a hostile fashion and either admit it or deny it according to the circumstances.
Canvassing is an anonymous activity. People are not going to say, "Hang on. I know you. You work for the local authority down the road. My God, what are you doing canvassing for the Conservative party or the Labour party?" It is absurd to include canvassing and holding political office as activities that will carry disqualification.
What will happen if someone continues to act in this way? The Bill states:
It will be included in contractual terms.
If someone grasses on the person who comes round canvassing or is organising the jumble sale or the bring-and-buy down the local Conservative association or Labour party office to the employer—the local authority—will that person face dismissal? That must be spelt out. This proposal goes much further than the concept in Committee. It is an attack on people's civil and political rights who are trying to organise within a political party.
If our democracy means anything and if political parties are in any way supportive of our democracy—some might argue that they are not, but I assume that all hon. Members would argue that they are—anything that limits people's involvement at even the most humble level in political parties should be rejected out of hand in this House, of all places.

Mr. DavidHunt: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Does the Minister have the leave of the House to speak again? [Interruption.] It seems that he has.

Mr. David Hunt: I was listening to the debate and I was enjoying it. However, from time to time I had to remind myself that we are debating the acceptance of Lords amendments which are the product of all-party agreement. I had to remind myself of that as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) was speaking. I have made a pledge not to be critical of him because he paid me such a fulsome tribute. It was so fulsome that I cannot remember exactly what he said—I was in a state of shock.
This has been an interesting debate on a very important subject. The hon. Member for Dundee, East Mr. McAllion) should not claim that the proposal should not apply to Scotland. He should listen to his hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) who said that it would he wrong for a chief executive of a council to be a councillor on another council. It just so happens that the chief executive of Clydebank district council is a member of Glasgow district council.

Mr. Maxton: And he does a very good job in both posts.

Mr. Hunt: I am sure that he does, but we are laying down the guidelines on how he can best carry out his duties in future. Therefore, the restrictions should apply to Scotland as much as to the rest of the United Kingdom.
In response to the hon. Member for Walsall, North, I can state that the criteria for political sensitivity applies to those who regularly advise council committees and sub committees, not those who may offer advice to individual councillors. With regard to other members of staff, what matters is who personally puts the advice to the committee. If a chief officer is assisted, but takes responsibility for the advice, the assistant is not regularly advising the committee. If the junior officer takes responsibility for the advice, he or she will be restricted.
There are already provisions in education legislation to restrict the professional activities of teachers in political areas.

Mr. Maxton: I do not know whether that is true in England and Wales, because I am not an expert. However, someone employed as a teacher in Scotland by the regional council is quite entitled to stand as a district councillor on the tier below that.

Mr. Hunt: I have just said that teachers are not dealt with in the Bill, because there are already provisions in education legislation to restrict their professional activities.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North referred to treasurers of political parties. Since 1948 that has been regarded as incompatible with being a senior civil servant. I remind the House that these provisions would come as no surprise to the vast majority of public servants in local government, because our proposal is a code of conduct to which they already subscribe. We are dealing with a very small minority of people who may feel that they are caught by the provisions.
With regard to Ministers' advisers, I must state that I am honoured to be so well served by some of the highest calibre civil servants who give me just as much loyal and impartial advice as they gave to members of the last Labour Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) was right to stress the inadequacies of Socialist

propaganda on the rates. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West did not try to justify that propaganda; he tried to show that other political parties tried to put forward political propaganda. While I do not accept the correctness of anything that the hon. Member said, he is talking to the same subject. It is wrong to have party political propaganda either funded on the rates or from people who are normally associated with the impartial activities of a local council.

Mr. Soley: May I have a commitment from the Minister? He is a Minister in the Department of the Environment, and it has been admitted in the background papers that the expenditure of £21 million by the water boards was designed to help privatisation. Given that the Minister has said that that is unacceptable, will he resign?

Mr. Hunt: No. That was to explain the importance of the measure, and it was in accordance with Government policy. If Opposition Members were reasonable, they would understand that we are talking about official council policy and official Government policy as opposed to party political propaganda.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister is demonstrating how difficult it is to make an acceptable distinction between information and propaganda. Politicians are deciding that the Government are putting out information and that local authorities are putting out propaganda. That is the problem. There is no objective assessment. Unless the Minister can come up with an acceptable and objective way of determining what is propaganda and what is information, he is simply interfering in a party political way in the affairs of local authorities.

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman must trust the fair-minded people, such as myself, who are Ministers in the Government.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: We are getting to the nub of the matter. Many people in local government fear that, although there may have been some all-party compromise rather than agreement in the other place, everyone is not necessarily talking about the same thing—they may think that they are, but they may not be. Will the Minister elaborate on future progress in defining some of the things that he promises and what opportunity there may be to review and reflect in future?

7 pm

Mr. Hunt: I readily respond. It has been an interesting debate, and I shall carefully consider the points that have been made.
To return to the all-party approach which characterised the start of the debate, the Lords amendments are the product of compromise and agreement between the Opposition and the Government. That they must now work effectively must be agreed. That is why we have gone out to consultation, and that is why, before we bring forward the regulations, we shall carefully consider all the points that have been made and listen to further representations that hon. Members may wish to make. We are determined to ensure that the product of these amendments is put into good law and that everyone knows exactly where he stands.

Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 1 negatived.

Lords amendment No. 1 agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 3, line 29, at end insert—
(1A) It shall be the duty of every local authority to prepare and maintain a list of such of the following posts under the authority, namely—

(a) the full time posts the annual rate of remuneration in respect of which is or exceeds £19,500 or such higher amount as may be specified in or determined under regulations made by the Secretary of State;
(b) the part time posts the annual rate of remuneration in respect of which would be or exceed that amount if they were full time posts in respect of which remuneration were paid at the same rate as for the part time post; and
(c) posts not falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above the duties of
which appear to the authority to fall within subsection (3) below,
as are not posts for the time being exempted under section (grant and supervision of exemptions from political restriction) below, posts for the time being listed under section 100G(2) of the Local Government Act 1972 or section 50G(2) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 or posts of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this subsection

Read a Second time.

Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment: (c), in line 21, at end insert—
`(1B) No regulations issued under section 1(5) above in respect of a post in a list prepared and maintained under subsection (1A) above, or in respect of a post falling within subsection (1)(f) above, shall prohibit a person holding such a post from endeavouring to persuade any person to give, or dissuade any person from giving, his vote for any candidate, whether as an elector or a proxy at any election.'.—[Mr. Blunkett.]

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 203, Noes 283.

Division No. 368]
[7.2 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Allen, Graham
Cohen, Harry


Alton, David
Coleman, Donald


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Armstrong, Hilary
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Ashton, Joe
Corbett, Robin


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Cousins, Jim


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Crowther, Stan


Barron, Kevin
Cryer, Bob


Battle, John
Cummings, John


Beckett, Margaret
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Beith, A. J.
Cunningham, Dr John


Bennett, A. F.(D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Dalyell, Tam


Bermingham, Gerald
Darling, Alistair


Bidwell, Sydney
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Blair, Tony
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Blunkett, David
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Boyes, Roland
Dixon, Don


Bradley, Keith
Dobson, Frank


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Doran, Frank


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Douglas, Dick


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Buchan, Norman
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Buckley, George J.
Eadie, Alexander


Caborn, Richard
Eastham, Ken


Callaghan, Jim
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Fatchett, Derek


Canavan, Dennis
Faulds, Andrew


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Fearn, Ronald


Cartwright, John
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Fisher, Mark


Clelland, David
Flannery, Martin





Flynn, Paul
McNamara, Kevin


Foster, Derek
McWilliam, John


Fraser, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Fyfe, Maria
Marek, Dr John


Galloway, George
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Martin, Michael J.(Springburn)


George, Bruce
Martlew, Eric


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Maxton, John


Gordon, Mildred
Meacher, Michael


Gould, Bryan
Meale, Alan


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Michael, Alun


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Grocott, Bruce
Morgan, Rhodri


Hardy, Peter
Morley, Elliot


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Morris, Rt Hon J.(Aberavon)


Haynes, Frank
Mowlam, Marjorie


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Mullin, Chris


Heffer, Eric S.
Murphy, Paul


Henderson, Doug
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hinchliffe, David
O'Brien, William


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
O'Neill, Martin


Hogg, N.(C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Home Robertson, John
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Parry, Robert


Howell, Rt Hon D.(S'heath)
Pendry, Tom


Howells, Geraint
Pike, Peter L.


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hoyle, Doug
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Radice, Giles


Illsley, Eric
Randall, Stuart


Ingram, Adam
Redmond, Martin


Janner, Greville
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Richardson, Jo


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Robertson, George


Kirkwood, Archy
Robinson, Geoffrey


Lambie, David
Rooker, Jeff


Lamond, James
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Leadbitter, Ted
Rowlands, Ted


Leighton, Ron
Ruddock, Joan


Lewis, Terry
Sheerman, Barry


Litherland, Robert
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Livingstone, Ken
Short, Clare


Livsey, Richard
Skinner, Dennis


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Loyden, Eddie
Smith, J. P.(Vale of Glam)


McAllion, John
Snape, Peter


McAvoy, Thomas
Soley, Clive


McCartney, Ian
Spearing, Nigel


Macdonald, Calum A.
Steinberg, Gerry


McFall, John
Stott, Roger


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Straw, Jack


McLeish, Henry
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)






Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Williams, Alan W.(Carm'then)


Turner, Dennis
Wilson, Brian


Vaz, Keith
Winnick, David


Wall, Pat
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Wallace, James
Worthington, Tony


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)



Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Mrs. Llin Golding and


Wigley, Dafydd
Mr. Robert N. Wareing.


Williams, Rt Hon Alan





NOES


Adley, Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Aitken, Jonathan
Dover, Den


Alexander, Richard
Dunn, Bob


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Durant, Tony


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Eggar, Tim


Amess, David
Emery, Sir Peter


Amos, Alan
Evennett, David


Arbuthnot, James
Fallon, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Favell, Tony


Ashby, David
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Aspinwall, Jack
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Baker, Rt Hon K.(Mole Valley)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fookes, Dame Janet


Baldry, Tony
Forman, Nigel


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Batiste, Spencer
Fox, Sir Marcus


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Franks, Cecil


Bendall, Vivian
Freeman, Roger


Benyon, W.
French, Douglas


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gale, Roger


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gill, Christopher


Body, Sir Richard
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Glyn, Dr Alan


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Boswell, Tim
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Gorst, John


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gow, Ian


Bowis, John
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gregory, Conal


Brazier, Julian
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Grist, Ian


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Ground, Patrick


Buck, Sir Antony
Grylls, Michael


Budgen, Nicholas
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Burns, Simon
Hague, William


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Butcher, John
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butler, Chris
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butterfill, John
Hanley, Jeremy


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hannam, John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hargreaves, A.(B'ham H'll Gr')


Carrington, Matthew
Harris, David


Carttiss, Michael
Haselhurst, Alan


Cash, William
Hawkins, Christopher


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hayes, Jerry


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Chapman, Sydney
Hayward, Robert


Chope, Christopher
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Churchill, Mr
Heddle, John


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Clark, Sir W.(Croydon S)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Conway, Derek
Hill, James


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hind, Kenneth


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Holt, Richard


Cormack, Patrick
Hordern, Sir Peter


Couchman, James
Howard, Michael


Cran, James
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Howarth, G.(Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Day, Stephen
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Devlin, Tim
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Dicks, Terry
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Dorrell, Stephen
Hughes, Robert G.(Harrow W)





Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hunter, Andrew
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Irvine, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Irving, Charles
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Jack, Michael
Rost, Peter


Jackson, Robert
Rowe, Andrew


Janman, Tim
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Jessel, Toby
Ryder, Richard


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Sackville, Hon Tom


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Key, Robert
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shelton, Sir William


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Shephard, Mrs G.(Norfolk SW)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knapman, Roger
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knox, David
Shersby, Michael


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lawrence, Ivan
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Speller, Tony


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Squire, Robin


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lord, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Stern, Michael


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Stevens, Lewis


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Maclean, David
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Major, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Malins, Humfrey
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Mans, Keith
Sumberg, David


Maples, John
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Marlow, Tony
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Miller, Sir Hal
Thompson, D.(Calder Valley)


Mills, Iain
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Miscampbell, Norman
Thorne, Neil


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thornton, Malcolm


Mitchell, Sir David
Thurnham, Peter


Moate, Roger
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Townsend, Cyril D.(B'heath)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Tracey, Richard


Morrison, Sir Charles
Tredinnick, David


Moss, Malcolm
Trotter, Neville


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Mudd, David
Viggers, Peter


Neale, Gerrard
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Needham, Richard
Walden, George


Nelson, Anthony
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Waller, Gary


Nicholls, Patrick
Ward, John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Warren, Kenneth


Oppenheim, Phillip
Watts, John


Paice, James
Wheeler, John


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Whitney, Ray


Patnick, Irvine
Widdecombe, Ann


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Wiggin, Jerry


Pawsey, James
Wilkinson, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Winterton, Nicholas


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wolfson, Mark


Portillo, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Powell, William (Corby)
Yeo, Tim


Price, Sir David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rattan, Keith



Rathbone, Tim
Tellers for the Noes:


Redwood, John
Mr. Alistair Goodlad and


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Mr. David Lightbown.


Riddick, Graham

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendment No. 3 agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 7 agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 8 and 9 agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Clause 11

CONFIDENTIALITY OF STAFF RECORDS

Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 16, line 18, leave out
Subject to subsection (3) below".

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment No. 11.[Interruption.] Order. There is a great deal of noise in the Chamber and we are considering amendments that are extremely complex and difficult for hon. Members to follow. Would those hon. Members who wish to hold conversations do so elsewhere?

Mr. William O'Brien: The amendments are important because they relate to a significant number of local authority staff and deal with the confidentiality of staff salary records. We are pleased that the amendments that have been pressed in both this House and in another place have been accepted by the Government because they mean a great deal to a lot of people.
I should like to put one point to the Minister arising from the debate in their Lordships' House. It was decided that a working party would be established consisting of civil servants in the Department of the Environment and officers of the local authority associations to try to work out a proper formula about how the confidentiality provisions would apply both in total and in general.
We have been given to understand that the working party has yet to be established. If an amicable arrangement cannot be agreed with officers of the Department of the Environment and local authority associations, before any action is taken on the proposals, can the matter be brought back to the House for a general discussion? There may be contentions or difficulties to resolve.
This involvement is far-reaching. That is borne out by the way in which the Government have accepted the amendments that have been submitted. The Opposition parties deserve congratulations for the way in which they have pressed these amendments. If the working party cannot reach an agreement with the various officers, no action should be taken until we have had an opportunity to discuss it in the House. I ask the Minister to give that request his careful consideration.

Mr. David Hunt: The amendment provides that protection of personal information under clause 11 for employees of local authorities and certain other bodies at the time of audit should be extended to information about gross pay and benefits. As amended, the Bill provides that no information about employees will be available for public inspection at that time.
As my noble Friend Lord Hesketh made clear during consideration of the amendments on Report in another place, we remain of the view that it is important to get the right balance between public accountability and personal privacy.
No departmental officials are involved here. The issue is being considered by the Audit Commission and by the local authority associations. Together they are examining the system of public inspection at the time of audit.
I understand that the working party has already been established but, in view of the doubt that the hon. Gentleman has expressed, I shall check that information immediately after I leave the Chamber.
I understand that the working party will publish its recommendations, which will then be open to comment. I should like to make it absolutely clear that we will then wish to consider any recommendations that it makes. I cannot go further than that. In the meantime, we recognise that no information about local authorities' employees will be open to abuse and, for that reason, we accept the amendment.

Mr. O'Brien: The Minister says that the working party is in place and I accept that. If its report is published for consultation, I am prepared to accept the assurances given by the Minister. We look forward to obtaining the report.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 11 and 514, to 553 agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 11

ENACTMENTS REPEALED

Lords amendment: No. 554, in page 219, line 18, column 3, at end insert—



"In section 177, subsection (2A) and in subsection (3), the words "(but not for the purposes of subsection (2A) above)".




Section 177A.




In section 178, in subsection (1), the words "and 177A"."

Read a Second time.

Amendments made to the Lords amendment: (a), in line 5, at end add 'and subsection (5)'.

(b), in page 223, line 4, at end insert—

'1988 c. 4.
The Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988.
In Schedule 6, in paragraph 10, subparagraphs (6) and(7).'.—[Mr.DavidHunt.]

Lords amendment No. 554, as amended, agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 555 to 581, 583 to 601 and 603 to 606 agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 132

SCOTTISH NON-DOMESTIC RATES: INTERIM PROVISIONS

Lords amendment: No. 256, in page 118, line 29, after "value" insert
or, where a rateable value has been prescribed or determined in respect of the lands and heritages under section 128 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. according to that rateable value

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Chris Patten): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 257 to 264, 328, 329, 330 and


amendments (a) to (f) thereto, 331 to 371, 372 and amendments (a) to (d) thereto, 373 to 399, 400 and Government amendment (a) thereto and 401 to 424.

Mr. Douglas:: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is not our responsibility to challenge the grouping of amendments, but some of these relate expressly to Scotland. Am I right in understanding that a Scottish Office Minister may move those amendments separately, if he should manage to catch your eye? Will those amendments that relate to Scotland be moved by a Scottish Office Minister?

Madam Deputy Speaker: If a Minister seeks to catch my eye, I will call that Minister.

Mr. Douglas: Further to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry. but will the Secretary of State make it clear that he is not grouping these amendments to move them collectively and that the amendments relating to Scotland will be moved by a Scottish Office Minister?

Mr. Patten: Further to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We intend to give my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland the opportunity to speak during the debate, if that is agreeable to the House. I think that a Scottish spokesman from the Opposition Front Bench will also intervene—in fact I know now that that will happen. I am sure that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) and other hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies will want to have a say. l hope that is acceptable to the House.

Mr. Blunkett: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should like it to be made clear that we are taking this whole group of amendments together, and that they can be moved and debated as one.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I can clear the air on that I am sure. We are dealing with the group of amendments beginning with No. 256, which is the lead amendment and which the Secretary of State is currently moving.

Mr. Douglas: On a point or order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I correct my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett)? My understanding is that the amendments will not be moved and debated as one, but that the amendments relating to Scotland will be moved separately. Can I be clear about that?

Mr. Patten: I understand that it has been agreed, in the normal fashion, that I should move that this House agrees with Lords amendment No. 256 and that we should then discuss with it a group of amendments including some that affect Scotland. Because some of the amendments affect Scotland, there will be interventions from appropriate spokesmen on both sides of the House. At the end of the debate, with the leave of the House, I shall wind up for the Government and someone—I am not quite sure who—will wind up for the Opposition. I hope that that will take proper account of the legitimate Scottish interest in the business before us.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Secretary Patten on Lords amendment 256.

Mr. Patten: The amendments that we are now considering deal with issues that relate to the introduction of a new system of local government finance for next year. They are grouped together for discussion because I am

sure that the House will wish to spend substantial time discussing the main issue that arises from them—the introduction of the transitional relief scheme.
There are bound to be areas and individuals who gain or lose from any substantial change to the system of local government finance or a comparable revenue raising system. As I understand it, that is the problem which is causing the Labour party further to sophisticate its two-tax policy for local government finance.
Under the existing system of domestic rates, many people have been unfairly treated. One thinks straightaway of single pensioner households, widows, single-parent families, and all those on the lowest incomes. They will almost all be better off as a result of the new system.
I shall spend a few minutes explaining to the House how we intend to ensure a smooth transition to the new system for those areas and groups of people who will, to some extent, be worse off. We propose two measures to help such areas. The area safety net was specifically introduced for that purpose. It provides that average ratepayers will lose no more than 50p a week on a comparison with their rate bill this year, increased by the GDP deflator of 4 per cent. We have now decided that the safety net will be abolished after the first year, but in the succeeding three years protection for those areas will be paid for by the Exchequer. The cost will amount to more than £600 million during that period. In addition, we are providing nearly £100 million next year to help areas with particularly low rateable values. That relief will be phased out over the same period as the general relief for areas.
7.30 pm
It is important to remember that individuals in those areas received subsidy from other areas regardless of their own level of income. That has never been a fair way of distributing grant and it is right to abolish it. The Government have always recognised, however, that it was important to cushion the effects on those areas that would lose out as a result. That is the effect of our proposals.
Protection for those areas will not ensure that all those individuals who need help receive it. That is why we are ensuring that the new system of rebates for the community charge will be more generous than that provided for under the old domestic rating system. The rate at which rebates will be withdrawn will be 15p for every pound of extra income instead of 20p for every pound under the rates. The cost of rebates in Britain next year, including uprating of income support to help pay community charge bills, will be of the order of £2·5 billion and more than one in four adults are expected to benefit as a result. By any standards that represents a generous level of help for those in need.
It would not be right to build permanently into the system yet more protection, but I recognise that many individuals whose earnings are above the rebate level could face substantial increases in bills unless they are given special protection. That is why we are introducing the transitional relief scheme.
The first question to be answered is how one decides who should receive help. I do not believe that it would be right to include all first-time payers. The whole point of the introduction of the new system is that almost everyone should make a contribution towards the cost of local government. Arguably those who have not yet contributed should have been contributing all along.


local government. Arguably those who have not yet contributed should have been contributing all along.
It would also be wrong to protect individuals from the consequences of overspending by their local councils. The remedy for that lies in the ballot box. I recognise, however, that a move from a system based on rateable values to one based on adults means that some people living in low rateable value properties may find themselves worse off. It is those people that the new relief scheme is intended to help. We also thought it right to go somewhat further than that. We believe that disabled people and pensioners who are not paying rates deserve special help. We have therefore decided that first-time payers who are pensioners or are disabled will also qualify for the scheme. If they are already ratepayers, of course, they will receive help in the normal way. In total, the transitional relief scheme should help about 6 million
The second question to answer is how one defines the floor and the ceiling for protection. In one sense it is unfair to use this year's rate bill as the floor. We all know that were the rating system to continue almost everyone's rate bill would have been higher. In that sense they all would have been losers. None the less, we thought it right to be generous in providing help for the new system, so we are defining the floor for protection as this year's rate bill.

Mr. Soley: It is an open secret that the Secretary of State did not like the poll tax and I suspect that that was because he knew that it was unfair in the way in which it hit people. The point about rates is equally unfair because he knows that, over the years, the Government have cut £28 billion from the rate support grant. If the Secretary of State intends to argue that this year's rate bill should be the floor, surely, by his own previous arguments, he should accept that the way in which to give relief should be based on need by assessment rather than through the blanket approach that he has now adopted. That approach will leave many people worse off.

Mr. Patten: There are two important ways in which to deal with need. The first is through the rebate system and that is why I am pleased that the rebate system for the community charge is more generous than that for domestic rating. The second method is to look at the particular problems that arise because of a change from a system based upon rateable values to one based upon adults. That does throw up particular difficulties in low rateable value properties, as I have already explained. The interim relief scheme is designed to assist in solving such problems.
I think it improbable in the new model Labour party, which is substantially committed to the standards of fiscal rectitude trooped by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), that it would decide that the only way in which to be fair to local authorities would be to add £28 billion to what they are spending and consider that that was the right starting point. I have read—I dare say I am one of the few people who have done so—
Meet the Challenge: Make the Change
and I have seen what it says about the importance of bearing down on overspending. I find it difficult to understand why those views about overspending never seem to apply to local authorities, but to the Ministry of

Defence alone. During the time that I hope to spend in my job I look forward to learning more about the Labour party's views on controlling local expenditure.

Mr. Soley: Let me help the Secretary of State get out of his misery. He knows that the Labour party's alternative has not only been warmly welcomed by all—[Interruption.] Oh yes, that is right. It has been warmly welcomed by specialist local government groups, especially those concerned with finance. Our proposal operates in almost every other advanced democracy and it is recognised that it not only gives more flexibility to local authorities in the way in which they raise their expenditure, but deals with the issue of fairness. The Secretary of State cannot bring himself to face that issue. When he took on the job he knew that the Government's proposals were unfair, but he still took that job on and he is still doing his lady's bidding.

Mr. Patten: I believe that the community charge is incomparably fairer than the domestic rating system. If any Secretary of State stood at this Dispatch Box and tried to argue, with a straight face, that we should base the way in which local revenue is raised on notional rental values 16 years out of date—[Interruption.] That is what the domestic rating system amounts to. I am describing the present system.
If the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) believes that the policy left behind by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) is still the policy of the Labour party he should have a word with the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). I am not absolutely convinced that the hon. Member for Dagenham, who is extremely bright and sensible, has quite the same idea. It was the constituency Labour party from Dagenham that tabled a motion at the Labour party conference to say that the Labour party's proposals were electorally and administratively unacceptable. I predict that the Labour party will be back with a new Mandelson-proof scheme as an alternative to domestic rates in a few months' time. We will then be delighted to provide exemplifications on that alternative as well. I believe that there are some Opposition Members who secretly wish that their party had never abandoned its commitment to the domestic rating system.

Mr. Douglas: indicated assent.

Mr. Patten: I note that there is one on the Opposition Benches. We are exposing one or two fractures in the carapace of the Opposition's position.
I shall move on in this spirit of convivial agreement. At least most of us are agreed—with one exception, and I am prepared to listen to more views—that none of us believes that we should continue with the domestic rating system. [Interruption.] I am not sure if one or two hon. Members disagree.

Mr. Douglas: I shall make my own speech.

Mr. Patten: We do not have unanimity, but we are approaching it. The alternatives on offer will be closely examined by the electorate at the next general election. I am sure that the Labour party will want to bring forward its proposals as soon as possible so that they can be subject to political debate and examination by the constituency Labour party in Dagenham and elsewhere.
We were talking about the definition of the floor for protection and I said that we were taking that as this year's


rate bill. However, it would be wrong to provide protection for any level of spending which the local authority cared to incur next year. That would simply give the green light to excessive spending locally. Having listened to what has been said, I am sure that the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer would not wish us to do so. Therefore, we are providing help to match the level of local authority spending that we have assumed for next year. That level is 11 per cent. more than the level that we assumed for this year. In no sense can that be regarded as unreasonable or ungenerous.
Obviously, there are problems in devising a scheme to smooth the transition from a system based on households to one based on individuals. In particular, there are difficulties related to houses in multiple occupation. We are talking to the local authority associations about these problems, and we have to draw a line somewhere. Inevitably, there are arguments about who should and who should not be covered by the scheme. I am confident that they can be resolved and I shall do all that I can to ensure that they are. I wish to say immediately that, regardless of the political differences between us, I hope that we can enjoy an effective working relationship with the local authority associations, because that is in the interests of good government in this country.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Secretary of State seems to accept that there are serious concerns about the problems of perming any two out of an HMO. I hope that he will accept—I am sure that he will come in for a lot of criticism if he does not—that that proposal cannot be made to work. There is no way that two individuals can be permed out of a house of multiple occupation. The real world does not work like that.

Mr. Patten: I do not accept that principle. The hon. Gentleman and others should not exaggerate the scale of the problem. It stands to reason that most of the houses in which there are likely to be a large number of residents will be high rateable value houses and are unlikely to be those that are covered by the scheme. Nevertheless, there are practical problems which will probably affect 2·5 per cent. of the total expenditure of the scheme. We want to resolve those problems. I hope that we can find some way of agreeing their resolution with the local authority associations; if not, we shall have to agree to disagree.
I am aware that it is pretty late in the day to be introducing a new system of relief. It will cause difficulties for the local authorities implementing it. However, sensible local authorities welcome this extra protection for their community charge payers. I also understand that computer houses believe that these changes do not present insuperable difficulties.[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) giggles. I do not know which computer firms he has consulted. We have discussed this——

Mr. Maxton: rose——

Mr. Patten: If the hon. Gentleman will let me finish I shall let him intervene.
We have discussed this matter with a number of computer firms. There are problems with bolting additional requirements on to the existing system, but we understand that computer houses believe that these changes can be made in a way that will enable us to bill at the appropriate time next year.

Mr. Maxton: I wonder whether the Secretary of State has spoken to the directors of finance and the directors of computer services, particularly those in large local authorities in Scotland, where an attempt is being made to bolt this system on to an existing scheme which has been up and running for seven months. Those computers, which are already dismally failing to cope with the present position, are being asked to cope with this additional matter. I wish that the Secretary of State would talk to people in Scotland about what is happening instead of relying on software experts in private companies.

Mr. Patten: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would take it amiss if I had had discussions with computer houses in Scotland about the Scottish system. Were that the case, the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) would quite properly take exception. I was talking about discussions that we have had with computer houses in England. I am sure that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton)—and the hon. Member for Cathcart will be able to describe the discussions which are taking place in Scotland.

Mr. Douglas: Does not the Secretary of State accept that he should not necessarily be discussing the matter with computer houses, but consulting with his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who would tell him of the difficulties of trying to rejig a system and rewrite programs? In Fife people are working night and day, and trying to rejig the system at considerable cost. What additional cost has the Secretary of State for Scotland said will be incurred in trying to rejig the system?

Mr. Patten: When we proposed this scheme, we discussed it with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, with whom we are always happy to have discussions. I repeat that I think that the hon. Member for Cathcart and others would take it amiss were I to try to speak for the Scottish Office or my right hon. and learned Friend, who is well capable of speaking for himself. Therefore, I shall leave discussion of the administrative problems in Scotland to my Scottish colleagues.[Interruption.] It is all very well for the hon. Member for Cathcart to laugh, but he knows perfectly well that if I were to try to say too much about Scotland, hon. Members would regard it as an appalling piece of lese majestê.

Mr. Bill Walker: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware, since my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland would have advised him, that the Scottish regions do not all operate the same system, equipment, or software. Consequently, the difficulties experienced in whichever region one considers depend on which system it operates and how effective it is.

Mr. Patten: I am sure that my hon. Friend has explained, to the universal satisfaction of the Opposition, the position in Scotland. I wish that I were as well informed about the position in Scotland as is my hon. Friend. Even if I were, I would not have dared to speak for Scotland during this debate.
As the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West implied, the relief scheme will involve additional costs for local authorities. I assure the House that we shall meet all reasonable costs associated with its introduction. I should make it absolutely clear that I want to ensure that the scheme is a success. I have argued that point strongly in my discussions with local authority associations. We shall do everything we can to ensure that it is a success.
The principle of providing transitional protection is undoubtedly right. When domestic revaluations were carried out in 1963 and 1973, transitional relief was made available. As I have explained, the scheme will not undermine accountability because it will not provide help over and above the level of spending assumed by the Government for next year. In those circumstances, it is reasonable to recognise the need to concentrate on those likely to be most affected, and to do so without building into the system permanent protection that would undermine the accountability that is so central to the community charge.
The other Government amendments relate to technical and other improvements to the legislation setting up the new local government finance system. In particular, they refer to the transition to the business rate—I hope that one or two of my hon. Friends will speak on that matter—to certain new exemptions from the community charge and to alterations to the arrangements for the standard charge. There are also some minor amendments relating to Scotland, but with the agreement of Scottish Members I shall leave them to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who will reply to the debate. I look forward to hearing from the hon. Member for Cathcart, from, I hope, a vertical rather than a horizontal position.
I have made my main points about the transitional relief scheme in my answers to the various interventions. The Government have put forward their alternative to domestic rates and, with some honourable exceptions, almost everyone in the House is in agreement. Our proposals for the community charge are more equitable and more sensible than domestic rating. We look forward——

Mr. Tony Banks: rose——

Mr. Patten: I was about to perorate.

Mr. Banks: Before the Secretary of State perorates, which is a painful experience for us all, will he say something about the publicity campaign? There is nothing in the Department of the Environment paper about that, but there has been some speculation in the newspapers. How much is likely to be spent on the publicity campaign for the transitional relief scheme and the poll tax generally? Is he prepared to consult local authority associations to ensure that that publicity will be based on information rather than on Tory propaganda?

Mr. Patten: The information about the publicity campaign was given in a parliamentary answer, not leaked through a newspaper. As the hon. Gentleman knows, if one really wants to keep a secret, one should announce it in the House. However, on this occasion the information was, surprisingly, picked up by the newspapers. I saw some exemplifications—a word that I have learnt in this job—in yesterday's newspapers of what the advertising might look

like. They were rather interesting commentaries on local government finance and on some of the attitudes of the Labour party. They are not the sort of advertisements that would be likely to pass the scrupulous attention of my hon. Friends and others.
It is possible both in local government and in central Government to have good and effective advertising that does not cross over any of the political parameters. We shall try to ensure that take-up of rebates for community charge payers and the take-up of the interim relief scheme are as substantial as possible. I am well aware of the interest of hon. Members on both sides of the House in the quality of that advertising. I assure them that I am also aware of the political parameters that were discussed during our previous debates.

Mr. McAllion: The Secretary of State said that the Government wanted to ensure the maximum take-up of rebates. In that case, when it became clear in Scotland that by keeping the original date thousands of people would lose out on rebates, why did Scottish Ministers refuse to extend the deadline? As a result, many thousands of pensioners were denied the right to rebates.

Mr. Patten: Almost two months were given—[Interruption.] It was 56 days, which by my reckoning is virtually two months. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will deal more substantially with that point in his reply. The Opposition cannot have it both ways. Sometimes we are criticised for not encouraging take-up of rebates, and at other times we are criticised for suggesting advertising and are accused of doing something politically mischievous. I hope that all those eligible for rebates will take up those rebates. That is not a desperately partisan observation. I hope that all those who are entitled to benefit from the interim relief scheme will take up that benefit. That will involve public advertising, but I am sure that we can produce advertising that will satisfy hon. Members on both sides of the House who legitimately want to help those in need.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I support the Secretary of State's suggestion that people need all the help that they can get to pay the poll tax. If anything can be done to achieve that, so much the better. Previously I have been involved with a number of organisations trying to increase take-up of benefits in other areas. People are often unaware that they can claim benefits. I hope that, while promoting his campaign, the right hon. Gentleman will try to get his colleagues in other Departments to run similar benefit take-up campaigns.

Mr. Patten: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security would take exactly the same view as I do on the take-up of benefits. At least the House appears to be moving towards agreement that, without overstepping the proper political parameters, we should advertise the rebates and the transitional interim relief so that people can get the assistance that Parliament has voted for them. We want to introduce the community charge as smoothly and as successfully as possible, and the interim relief scheme is an important element in that process. When we first announced it, the Opposition denounced it as an electoral bribe. Judging by the amendments that they have now tabled, it appears that either they do not think that it is large enough or they think that we should be spending the money in other ways.
It is a sensible and effective way of targeting help on those who need it while the community charge is being introduced, and I unreservedly commend it to the House.

Mr. Blunkett: I was remiss earlier in not welcoming the right hon. Gentleman to his new position. I hope that he has greater fortune than his predecessors—although, perhaps. promotion out of chaos might be catching. Other than the previous Secretary of State who has gone to Rip Van Winkle land in the Department of Trade and Industry, every other change in the Department of the Environment team has meant promotion.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said earlier, by anybody's description the Bill is in chaos with more than 600 amendments having been tabled. One of the Department's former team has moved to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food while another has moved to pastures new in the Department of Health. Those who have been promoted have left behind them—if my canine friend will forgive me for saying so—an absolute dog's dinner. It must be a message for the hon. Gentleman—if he makes a big mess, he could end up a contender for the premiership. I advise him to think on rapidly. Any pretence that the poll tax is acceptable or workable has disappeared. The proposals announced on 11 October and put before the House tonight reflect an admission of defeat, in respect not only of the safety net but of the poll tax. It is not the device to soften the tax but the tax itself that lies at the heart of the Government's problems.
8 pm
The Secretary of State's words tonight cannot hide what is clearly a shabby bribe—an attempt to hold on to marginal Conservative seats by using public money to cushion the impact on the electorate of a tax that it does not want. There can be no other explanation. Again and again, we have appealed to the Government to alter the implementation of the tax. Even Conservative Back Benchers pleaded for banding of the tax to help those who are worst off, but that plea too was rejected. It was only in the wake of the Labour party campaign explaining to the public what the poll tax will really mean that Government Back Benchers began worrying about its repercussions on their seats.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) remarked earlier, the Government are so worried about the effect of the poll tax in the run up to the 1990 local elections and to the next general election that they propose spending £1 million of public money in an attempt to convince everyone how good their proposals really are. I wonder whether the publicity campaign in Wales will be slightly different from that used for England. The campaign used in Scotland will certainly need to be different, because what was unacceptable to the Scots and lost the Conservatives seats there will have to be made acceptable to the English. Perhaps the Secretary of State for Wales will present his proposals more clearly. Since the leaflet drop earlier this year, the hon. Gentleman has gained a reputation for demonstrating the unanimity of the Cabinet, by devising his own means of avoiding the pitfalls of the Department of the Environment. He is probably known in the Cabinet as "Do-it-yourself Peter", because he has his own ways of ensuring that the administrative chaos facing England is modified for Wales.
Nothing that the Government say will hide the truth from the electorate. No matter how much money they spend, their proposals to tinker with the poll tax will be exposed for what they are. The resultant confusion will lead not only to greater bewilderment but frustration and anger among people who think that they are entitled to relief but discover that they are not—and among those who believed that their poll tax bills would be lower but realise that they were misled.
Local authorities throughout the country point out that the administrative chaos will be something to see. The problems of 1982, with the transfer of unified housing benefit out of the social security system, were bad enough, but the bolt-on arrangements for the computer systems will lead to considerable difficulties. Some have already been evident. During the registration procedure, 15,000 forms were lost in transit between Wickham and the Philippines. Sastec, which was given the task of transferring the registration data to magnetic tape, sent work, under competitive tendering arrangements, to the Philippines. That material was lost in transit on the return journey. Perhaps other local authorities will, in the interests of achieving the lowest possible labour and other costs, send their registration data around the world in implementing transitional arrangements. If that is done, the chaos will be even greater than envisaged.
The continuing expense and delay has been criticised again and again by not only Labour authorities but the leaders of the Conservative-controlled Association of District Councils. Councillor Thomason feels that it will be necessary to delay the dispatch of poll tax bills until May or June next year, and I understand that the Secretary of State has told the ADC that such might be necessary. Some of us remember when councillors were surcharged and disqualified for failing to implement rates bills by 1 April.

Mr. Chris Patten: For the record, and as the hon. Gentleman raised this point, it should be possible for local authorities to send out bills at the appropriate time next year. There should be no need for delay.

Mr. Blunkett: The Secretary of State must be an optimist for bringing forward such proposals in the first place. I hope that he is right, but if the bills are not out by 1 April the poorest will suffer. They will find it hardest to catch up if the system for making payments on a weekly or fortnightly basis is not immediately implemented.
When things go wrong, the Government will blame the local authorities. When the predicted chaos comes about, the Secretary of State will suggest that such was never the Government's intention and that it is not their fault.
The public will not believe them. It will be understood that by introducing complicated and difficult arrangements at a late stage, the Government and not local authorities must take the blame for the consequent difficulties.

Mr. Patten: I have no doubt that introducing the scheme late in the day will place additional burdens on local authorities, who are already hard pressed, in making an important but difficult change to the community charge. I do not doubt either that many local authority officers are working flat out to introduce the community charge as proposed and that they have shown considerable commitment and professionalism in the work that they have already done. It would be neither sensible nor helpful


if I or anyone else were to make the kind of charges against local authorities that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) suggested we might be inclined to make. I want to work with local authorities to implement the interim relief scheme as successfully as possible. Despite the difficulties, we should, by working with local authorities, be able to achieve that objective. However, I do not for one moment underestimate the difficulties.

Mr. Blunkett: My belief is that local authority officials will do everything possible to implement the interim proposals and to cope with the administrative difficulties that confront them. I am anxious to ensure that no one remains under any misconception about the problems facing those officers and the difficulties that they will create for the public. I am anxious to stress also that if blame is to be allocated, it is not placed at the doorstep of the individuals who are nearest to members of the public, who are confused and suffering.
The Government will determine the level of poll tax through aggregate external funding and the arrangements announced by the Secretary of State for standard assessments and specific grants. The Government have constantly got wrong their estimates of the poll tax, so it is important to spell out again that it will not be a notional or imaginary figure. Three years ago, the Government suggested that, at average levels of spending, the poll tax would be £162 per person. The figure has since risen to £278.
That notional figure does not take into account balances that cannot be repeated by being used more than once, or the fact that no authority can achieve 100 per cent. take-up—in Scotland it is estimated that there has been a 7 per cent. drop. Nor does it take into account the real rate of inflation: the 3·8 per cent. figure is only half the true rate. Even if it were to take those factors into account, however, the notional figure would be about £345.
The importance of the Government figures is that the Government have chosen to use them in the implementation of transitional relief: people will be entitled to such relief only if the figure approximates to what the Government think the local authority should be spending. The notional figures, which are obviously either below or above that level depending on the Government's assessment, will determine whether they are so entitled.
Apart from collective poll tax and standard poll tax—with the exemptions which apparently are now available to Members of Parliament—along with the rating system that will continue to holiday lettings and the non-domestic rate applying to commercial premises, there are now seven different personal poll tax levels. There is the Government's standard spending assessment—the mythical target or ready reckoner of £278 which will have to go on poll tax bills. There is the notional poll tax or settlement figure for spending at Government-approved levels, exemplified in the papers that have been produced today. There is safety-netted poll tax; transitional poll tax for ratepayers; transitional poll tax and special help for non-ratepayers; rebated poll tax; and, finally, the real level of poll tax that will be levied by authorities working in and having to cope with the real world. They will set a level of poll tax that will retain the existing level of service for the

people in their areas: that is the level about which people will be concerned, and on which they will make a judgment.
Since 11 October, the myth has been peddled that no poll tax bill be more than £3 above the existing rate bill. Because of the notional figure—because of the way in which the Government are intent on blaming the local authorities—literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people who think that they are entitled to relief will find that they are not.
It is no good saying that that is because local authorities are overspenders. Conservative Members can say that if they wish, but if they do they must then condemn their own authorities. More than 90 per cent. of local authorities in England spend more than the amounts in the Government's guidelines—the new target figures that have been reintroduced. Of the authorities that spend more than 10 per cent. more than the guideline figures, 56 are Conservative and 36 Labour.

Mr. Chris Patten: May I help the hon. Gentleman? I am not sure from what he is saying whether he has misunderstood the interim relief scheme. He seems to be suggesting that, if a local authority spends more than is consistent with total standard spending nationally, the scheme will not be available to those living in that area.

Mr. Blunkett: I did not say that at all, and I would not want to imply it. What I am suggesting is that people who believe that they are entitled to relief will then find that they are not, because if spending is higher than the notional level predicted by the Government they will not be able to claim the difference between their rate bills and their poll tax bills. Many people expecting lower bills next year will be disillusioned when the bills fall through their letter boxes.
8.15 pm
I will not be diverted from my argument, however. I was saying that, of the authorities that spend more than 10 per cent. more than the assessed level, 56 are in Conservative hands, while only 36 are in Labour hands. Of the top 20 per cent. of so-called overspenders, seven are Conservative and only three Labour. The highest overspender—in terms of the assessment—is an authority that spends 210 per cent. more than the Government's guideline requires. That authority happens to be Mole Valley, the constituency of the chairman of the Conservative party.
I do not think that Conservative Members should be too quick to tell people, in the months ahead, that their local authority has disbarred them from help that they were promised. The offer of such help was illusory so it is no wonder the former Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), has moved to pastures new: Suffolk, Coastal spends 36 per cent. more than the guideline, and it will take more than irradiation to make the poll tax palatable in the right hon. Gentleman's area.
Even if the authorities conform to the Government's guidelines, however, few ratepayers will find themselves eligible for the new transitional help—those who are currently ratepayers, that is, as opposed to those receiving special help. The reason is simple: entitlement to it is dependent on a very low rateable value.
The Secretary of State said that our hearts should go out to pensioners. Mine does: it goes out to pensioners in


areas such as Pendle, where a rate bill would have to be as low as £12·74 a year—not a week—to entitle them to relief. In Hyndburn, it would have to be as low as £19·92 for a single pensioner; in Barrow-in-Furness, it would have to be £41·57. In the same areas, a couple would have to have a rate bill as low as £181·48, £195·84 and £239·14 respectively.
There will be major problems in regard to pensioners and the disabled—categories who are to be offered special help—who are not ratepayers, and who are therefore clearly living with a primary ratepayer. Apart from the administrative problems, clumsiness and costliness involved in trying to sort out who is eligible and who is not, it will be difficult to identify the primary ratepayer. Although it would be easy enough to look at the list to find out who paid the bill, in many households the primary ratepayer—the person whose name appears on the list—is not necessarily the person who pays the bill.
As we have tried to point out, other members of the household effectively pay rates, in that they contribute to household expenses. Thus many people entitled to special help because of age or disability will be better off than the primary ratepayer, who will find that he is entitled to no help. People living in the same household, on the same income, will be paying different amounts of poll tax, and one householder may be entitled to help while his poorer next-door neighbour is not. People will ask each other why their poll tax bills are different. That was exactly the accusation made against the rating system by Conservative Members when they introduced the poll tax: that a pensioner could be living alone in a house next door to people who were earning and better off but could end up paying the same bill. That is exactly what will happen under the transitional arrangements. A primary ratepayer who is a pensioner living alone next door to someone who is entitled to special help will find that he or she is a great deal worse off. I can see neither the fairness nor the justice of that. That is why we reject the scheme.
The cost will be enormous. That money ought to be spent on helping to cushion the effects of the poll tax. I do not know what the word "reasonable" will mean when it comes to the administrative costs that the Government have agreed to bear. They have said that they will meet all reasonable costs. The last time those words were used, the Association of District Councils suggested that the cost of implementing the poll tax would be £200 million short of what was required. That expense will have to be met by poll tax payers and by cuts in services. There will be confusion and concern about that.
The poll tax will have a great impact on community care. We have already referred to the fact that the poll tax will hit families hard. We are worried about the transitional help that is to be made available. I hope that the Secretary of State will deal with the point—I do not believe that it divides us politically—that if 28 February is used as the cut-off date we shall disfranchise people who move house and deal a blow to people who move from one type of property to another—for example, from a hostel or a nurses' home. They will not be entitled to any help because they are not primary ratepayers; they are secondary ratepayers.
We shall also disfranchise those who are discharged from hospitals and hostels for the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped for rehabilitation in the community. All hon. Members would be horrified to find after 1. April that people who were being rehabilitated and

reintegrated into the community were to he disqualified from special help because 28 February was the cut-off date. I ask the Secretary of State to examine that point again. He may not have much sympathy for those who live in houses of multiple occupation, who are not primary ratepayers and who will not get help. He may also not be worried about those who move from one household to another. However, I believe that every hon. Member will be concerned about the impact of the cut-off date on community care policies.
We welcome the additional exemptions to cover those who suffer from senile dementia, but I hope that the Secretary of State will put it on record that all sufferers from senile dementia, not just those suffering from Alzheimer's disease, will be exempted.

Mr. Chris Patten: Yes.

Mr. Blunkett: I welcome that commitment unreservedly. I believe that it is a wise and sensible move. I wish that it had been made a long time ago. My Scottish colleagues will have a word or two to say about it and other issues—that steps could have been taken to help the people of Scotland but were not.
Those who cease to be exempt under any category will find that they are not entitled to relief. Given the present position—and we would not dream of starting from here—a rebate system would make much more sense than the transitional relief proposal. It would be fair, understandable and workable. Furthermore, it would be administratively simple and it could easily he implemented by 1 April. It would help those who are just outside rebate entitlement.
People are often hit by the means test which disqualifies them from obtaining any help. By changing the taper from 15p to 10p, we could bring within the rebate scheme as many as 2 million people, 500,000 of whom would be pensioners. We should help those who need help most. We should do what most people believe to be fair—help those in need. We should base help on ability to pay and we should target that help. There are excellent precedents for doing that, with which Conservative Members would agree. I rarely agree with the new Secretary of State for Trade and Industry but I have to say, although it comes hard to put it on record, that I agree with what he said in the House on 18 Aprl 1988. He said that the Government had made their rebate system more generous, and that they had targeted it very much better. He said:
I can think of no scheme more closely attuned to ability to pay. "—[Official Report, 18 April 1988; Vol. 131, c. 591.]
That cannot be faulted. A rebate scheme—improved and extended by the £300 million that the then Secretary of State did not have—would help millions of people who, without that help, will be unable to meet their poll tax bills. That is why, in an effort to be constructive—not to carp and to be critical—we have tabled amendment (f) to Lords amendment No. 330.
It is important to examine again the operation of safety nets. As a result of phasing out the relief and safety net system, people such as pensioners, through no fault of their own or of the local authority, will be hit hard during the move from the first year to the second year. How can it be fair for a pensioner in, say, Guildford to make a gain of 28 per cent. in the second year of poll tax whereas a pensioner in Lewisham will lose by 69 per cent.? That is both unfair and unjust and it will be thought to be so when the scheme is implemented.
The non-domestic rate is another major bone of contention. Many of us in the north and the midlands are very concerned, not about the fact that people in the south will receive help during the transitional period but because the hard-pressed industrial and manufacturing sectors will have to bear the cost of the transition rather than the country as a whole. We believe that the transitional costs for the non-domestic sector should be met by the Government, just as they have agreed to meet the costs of personal poll tax payers during the transitional period. The 400,000 businesses that ought to gain from the revaluation changes should be allowed to enjoy the boost that they would give to economic and employment prospects, at a time when the single European market will be posing a major threat to jobs and manufacturing industry in those areas.

Mr. David Nicholson: The hon. Gentleman says glibly that the Government should meet those costs. Will he explain why the presonal taxpayer should meet the costs of bringing relief faster to businesses in areas that will benefit from the changes that this Government are introducing? The Labour Government never did that.

Mr. Blunkett: It is quite wrong that the unemployed, the low paid and deprived people in the north, the midlands and Wales should be made to pay for the phasing-in process. Why should industry be put at a disadvantage? Why should the relief not be made available to both personal poll tax payers and businesses? Why are the Government not prepared over a five-year period to find £2 billion to make that a reality? It would be a substantial help to those industries in the manufacturing sector. Our balance of trade might be improved if their opportunities were increased and the funds they had available for investment were increased by a reduction in rates. They shouted hard enough at me when I was the leader of a major city council. I want industries now to put the same pressure on the Government to make sure that they receive the gains to which we all agree they are entitled.
8.30 pm
At the end of the day it does not matter what we do to the transitional arrangements for personal poll tax or the national business rate, tinkering about at the edges with safety nets which allow big fish through but catch the small fish as we attempt to protect people from the worst unfairnesses of the tax. The truth is that we cannot get rid of the anomalies, the disadvantages and the dangers unless we get rid of the tax. It is no good kidding ourselves that people will be helped and assuring them that they will not feel the pain of the poll tax. In the end the tinkering will fail and people will realise what the poll tax means to them and to their families.
In one sense the answer is a little like the answer to the problems surrounding Sir Alan Walters and the former Chancellor. Tory Back Benchers have been saying, "Get rid of this tax or it will get rid of us." Our answer is the same as it was for the former Chancellor and the Prime Minister's adviser. When one goes, both will go. When the poll tax goes, it will go because we get rid of the Back Benchers who trooped throught the Lobbies and voted it

in. The answer for the electorate is clear. If they want to get rid of the poll tax, they should get rid of the Government who imposed it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): It may assist the House if I refer to the Scottish amendments which were alluded to earlier, although I shall also refer to the comments of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett).
Lords amendment No. 260 relates to the standard community charge. The Government are responding to the concerns that have been expressed in Scotland over some of the effects of the present standard community charge arrangements. I should make it quite clear at the start that many of the grievances that have been brought to our attention can be attributed directly to the decisions by local authorities. Under the present arrangements, they have had the discretion to set their standard community charge at between one and two times the personal charge. It is therefore regrettable that, with the exception of the Shetlands and the Western Isles, all Scottish local authorities set their charges at the maximum this year.

Mr. Maxton: When the Minister and the Secretary of State were establishing the level of revenue support grant to local authorities in Scotland, what multiple did they consider the local authorities would use?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Obviously the maximum which local authorities might set has to be taken into account, but we have taken that into account and we shall consider possible changes with regard to this year.
We accordingly decided that we had to alleviate the problem caused by high charges. The new proposals are designed to focus specifically on areas of hardship, leaving intact the basic principle of a flat-rate charge. They give the Secretary of State power to prescribe certain classes of property for which he will set the maximum multiplier. While we are still considering the extent to which that power should be used, we do not expect to make widespread use of it. Local authorities are very well placed to identify problem areas, and for that reason we are providing them with the power to prescribe their own classes, for which they will be able to set their own multipliers. That power will be limited by regulations, but our intention is only to restrict its use so that it does not become a means of reintroducing a form of tax based on the physical characteristics of a property.
The new powers will allow levying authorities to set different multipliers for classes in different districts in their areas—a power requested by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities with which we had a useful exchange of views. Finally, authorities are being given powers to set their multipliers at nought, a half, one and a half or two. That is in line with the powers available to authorities in England and Wales.
I should like to refer specifically to amendment No. 260 which allows the Secretary of State to prescribe certain classes of property for which he will lay down a maximum standard charge multiplier. It will also allow local authorities to determine their own classes for which they will be able to set their own multipliers. I am glad that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) is in his place as he raised this matter in the summer, along with his colleagues who represent rural constituencies.
Although we have not reached a final decision on which classes should be prescribed, premises which attract a standard charge because the person who was living there has to live elsewhere either to be looked after because of age or infirmity or as a carer looking after someone else who is old and infirm will attract a multiplier of nought. Empty manses will attract a multiplier of nought, homes of prisoners will attract a multiplier of nought, and homes of full-time students who live elsewhere during term time will attract a multiplier of nought for the duration of the course. Properties which attract a standard charge because of the occupant's death will attract a multiplier of nought for six months after the death. Properties used as trial flats for housing associations will attract a multiplier of nought. That will leave scope for authorities to determine other classes. For example, they may wish to determine a class comprising properties which attract the standard charge because their owners are obliged to live elsewhere under the terms of their employment. It will be for each regional or islands authority to determine within certain prescribed limitations what additional classes will be appropriate for the circumstances of their area and what the multiplier should be for those classes.
A particular query concerns prisoners. We are proposing to use the new standard charge provisions to prescribe a class of property comprising the homes of prisoners for which a maximum standard charge multiplier of nought will be prescribed so that people in prison will not have to pay the standard charge on their former home, although they might have to continue paying in respect of a second home.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) raised the matter of rebates. The take-up has been approximately in line with expectations, with more than 1 million people, or almost one in three adults, not having to pay the full community charge. He also mentioned the feasibility of implementing the scheme in Scotland. Discussions with local authorities so far have not revealed insuperable difficulties in introducing the community charge transitional relief scheme, even in the context of a scheme which will allow retrospection for the current year. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has undertaken to reimburse local authorities for reasonable administrative costs incurred in introducing and operating the scheme. Discussions with COSLA are certainly continuing and we hope to be able to announce in the near future the details of a fair and workable scheme.

Mr. Douglas: What is on the table? What figure do the Government have in mind as a reasonable cost? What sums are they putting on the table in response to COSLA?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Obviously the exact amount that it will cost for the local authorities to carry it out is a matter for negotiation between the local authorities and the Scottish Office. But the actual costs of the scheme will be between £20 million and £30 million for this year and the next two years. I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman's speech later.
As for the transitional relief scheme, the hon. Member for Brightside was not fighting the principle of relief, but wanted to apply it differently. The Government recognise that the transition from domestic rates to the community charge led to significant increases in bills for some people. The proposed amendments will enable the scheme to be

introduced which will provide transitional relief for former ratepayers, pensioners and the disabled whose community charge bills are significantly higher than their former rate bills.
The first amendment provides a regulation-making power which allows the Secretary of State for Scotland to provide that, where prescribed conditions are fulfilled, a person's liability to pay a personal community charge may be reduced by an amount in accordance with prescribed rules. The clause has been drafted widely so as not to prejudice the formulation of the scheme most appropriate to Scotland. It will allow comparison to be made between people's rates bills and their community charge bills, and will allow for special arrangements to be made for pensioners and disabled people. It has been drafted specifically to allow the scheme to be made retrospective in Scotland and thus be applied in respect of the financial year 1989–90. Discussions are continuing on the practicality of doing that.
We intend to use the powers to prescribe a scheme under which former ratepayers and their partners will, in the first year, lose no more than £3 a week, or £156 a year, as a result of the change from rates to the community charge, provided local authorities spend in line with the Government's assumptions. As the relief will be limited to the additional costs borne by two chargepayers, we intend to make special provision for pensioners and disabled people who would not be eligible for relief as former ratepayers or partners of former ratepayers. They will be able to apply for relief to ensure that they pay no more than £3 a week in community charge, with the same proviso. We have been discussing the precise details of the scheme with local authorities and full details will be announced as quickly as possible.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The Minister is giving the House important information that, although not ideal, will be welcomed. Will he make it clear whether he is speaking of individuals or households? Four adults paying £100 in rates may have to pay over £1,000. Will the household receive the cumulative amount or only the individual?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The point about multi-person households has already been raised. No final decision has been reached about the treatment of such households in Scotland. The hon. Member should remember that the scheme is intended to be targeted at former ratepayers. The change in their liability is not intended to provide universal relief. However, the rebate scheme will continue to link directly the community charge with the ability to pay. In most cases, the rateable value of households with three or more adults is too high to qualify its residents for relief.
The second amendment on transitional relief allows for the payment of a grant to local authorities in respect of the relief scheme. The grant may cover the revenue forgone by authorities as a result of community charges having been reduced by the relief scheme and the administrative costs to the authorities of administering and setting up the scheme. We have met with COSLA, and discussions are continuing to ensure that a fair and workable scheme is developed as quickly as possible. I hold the strong conviction that there is the will to make the scheme work and to get the funds to those concerned as quickly as possible.[Interruption.]
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) laughs, but about 500,000 people may benefit from such funds in Scotland. It is therefore important that it is done as quickly as possible.
The hon. Member for Brightside mentioned people who suffer from Alzheimer's disease. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who wrote on 12 October to say that he was very relieved that we have been able to make a concession. Hon. Members will be aware of the Government's decision to extend the exemption from the community charge for people who are severely mentally impaired to include people who are impaired as a result of a degenerative brain disorder or mental illness. The changes necessary to implement the proposals will be made by regulations under existing legislation.

Mr. Douglas: Given the importance of this issue, will the hon. Gentleman say what the Government are doing to overcome some of the difficulties that occurred when previous exemptions for the severely mentally impaired were made? Will he give an undertaking that if the Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped produces a leaflet to publicise the exemption, the Scottish Office will assist with its financing? What publicity does the Minister envisage to bring to the attention of the public the exemptions that will be made?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member raises a different point, about which I shall write to him. I met the chairman of the Alzheimer's Disease Society, who welcomed the steps that we are taking and asked for them to be back-dated. I am glad that we have been able to respond to that request.
Under the new definition, we are extending the definition of "severely mentally impaired", because the only people included under the current definition are people who are severely mentally impaired as a result of a brain injury or a congenital handicap. In future, others who are impaired because of a degenerative brain disorder or because of a mental illness will be included. It took some time to widen the definition of "severely mentally impaired" and to adopt a formula that would be effective and would stand the test of time. To qualify, a person must be severely mentally impaired and meet one of the qualifying conditions, such as entitlement to constant attendance allowance or severe disabled allowance. COSLA has welcomed these changes most warmly, and I hope that it has been of some assistance to report them to the House.

Mr. Maxton: I do not intend to enter into the argument about whether the domesic rating system was good or not, but, whatever its faults, it was an awful lot better than the scheme that the Government came up with to replace it.
The Secretary of State attacked the domestic rating system, and whenever anyone does I put on the record a quotation that says:
The Government recognises that rates are far from being an ideal or popular tax. But they do have advantages. They are highly perceptible to ratepayers and they promote accountability. They are well understood, cheap to collect and very difficult to evade. They act as an incentive to the most efficient use of property. No property tax can be directly

related to the ability to pay; but rate rebates, now incorporated in housing benefit, together with Supplementary Benefit, have been designed to reduce hardship. The Government have concluded and announced to Parliament that rates should remain for the foreseeable future the main source of local revenue for local government.
That quotation is from the Government's 1983 White Paper on local government financing. I hasten to add that that was after the 1983 election.

Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman will realise, as does every Scot, that despite what was said in 1983, the revaluation between 1983 and 1987 produced the most appalling problems for many people in Scotland. No Government, of whatever colour or complexion, could have allowed that to continue.

Mr. Maxton: Past revaluations did not cause any outcry, but there were two reasons why there was an outcry about the last revaluation. First, the Government were cutting rate support grant and, therefore, placing an increased burden on domestic rates, and, secondly, the Government gave instructions that the burden was to be switched from business rates to domestic rates. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) has never understood that fact, but there are many things that the hon. Gentleman fails to understands.
When the Government got the scheme off the ground in Scotland, the Secretary of State for Scotland said, "It is almost perfect; we are almost there. The scheme will last, and it is a good scheme." A quarter of the English Bill was taken up with changes to the Scottish Act. Now, these amendments are being shoved into an English Bill that again refers to the Scottish system. The Government realise that the poll tax in Scotland is a shambles. It is not working and is an administrative mess. The computer cannot cope with the 4,000 daily changes as a result of people moving. Rebate applications made on 1 April have still received no response. People have not received the rebates to which they are entitled and the 25 per cent. in Scotland to which the Secretary of State referred has not materialised. He said that the bills would be sent out with ease. Perhaps he should speak to Bill Aitken, one of the four Conservative councillors on Glasgow district council. He has written letter after letter to Strathclyde regional council asking it to send him a bill for his poll tax. He may be daft but he wants to pay it. However, it has not sent him a bill and there are many other examples of bills that had not been sent out even by the end of October.
Some people are receiving final demand notices for the poll tax when they have not received the original bill. The system is a shambles. The unfairness of it is shown in the enormous number of people who cannot afford to pay and who have not paid even though it is now November. Therefore, the Government have been forced to rethink their attitude to the way in which the poll tax will operate in Scotland. The transitional payment recognises that the poll tax is basically an unfair tax. By introducing it, the Government have admitted that.
I shall give a short history lesson because some hon. Members may not be aware that in 1986, when the Government introduced the Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Bill, there was a transitional arrangement within it. Under the Bill the rating system would be phased out at the same time as the poll tax was phased in. Rightly, the local authorities said that that administrative scheme was a nightmare and that they did not believe it could work. They said that the new scheme was difficult enough


but to have to run the two side by side would be absurd. So the Government accepted the amendments that I and others tabled and on Report they withdrew the transitional arrangement.
Having talked about the abolition of the original transitional scheme, the local authorities wrote to all members of the House of Lords. In a letter dated 24 April 1987 they said:
This suggests the need for some form of special transitional arrangement to limit the increased payment being sought in the first year; while such a broad-brush approach should provide rather rough justice, there is a precedent for it in the arrangements which were introduced in response to the special difficulties of those rate bills which rose…in 1985.
The Government rejected that. It was two and a half years ago that the transitional arrangement was first suggested to the Government as a means of ensuring that payments would not be massive for those who could least afford them. It has taken the Government two and a half years to accept that it might work. The Secretary of State described COSLA as the vehicle for Labour party policy in Scotland, but it was COSLA which first suggested that scheme. Now the Government are suggesting to COSLA that it should implement it. However, it is too late. It will cause enormous administrative problems and will not be anything like as generous as the Government think.
I accept the Government's commitment that any outstanding payments will be backdated to 1 April 1989 and that anybody entitled to them will receive them. However, they will probably not receive them until after 1 April 1990. The local authorities have made it clear to the Minister that, with all their other administrative shambles, they will find it impossible to cope with this scheme as well. We will have the absurdity of final demand notices being sent out to people who after 1 April next year will have a large part of that poll tax repaid to them.
In some of the regions dominated by the absent Scottish National party—Grampian——

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Dominated?

Mr. Maxton: Some of its members are still part of the administration. That area will use warrant sales. People will have the poll tax taken off them by the sale of their property. I have never heard anything so absurd as people having their property sold around them in order to pay a bill that will be repaid to them six months later. It is nonsense and the Government know it. They should have introduced the scheme long ago.
As has been pointed out, the Secretary of State and his Ministers plucked the notional poll tax figures out of the air during the months prior to the scheme's implementation in Scotland. No one in Scotland, from finance officers or elected local government personnel, has ever managed to work out exactly how they came up with the figures, but those are the figures upon which the transitional payment will be based. Let us suppose that one receives £156 more relief than under last year's rates. In Aberdeen the notional poll tax figure is £201 but the actual figure is £301, so one must immediately add on £100. The people will not receive anything like the generous benefit that Ministers are claiming. We welcome any relief but it ought to have been introduced two and a half years ago when it was first suggested, as it would now be in operation.

Mr. Bill Walker: rose——

Mr. Maxton: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that I am sitting down, he is in for a slightly rude shock as I have one or two other things to say.
On the standard poll tax, we welcome the changes that take out of the system elderly people who are forced to live with relatives because they are no longer capable of looking after themselves for short or long periods. They may have been pushed into having to pay a standard community charge on their house that could have been a multiple of two and upon which no rebates were allowable. We also welcome the other changes. However, they fail to recognise the basic unfairness of the tax.
In my constituency an old age pensioner couple wrote to me saying that some years ago they had been left a holiday flat in Millport on the island of Cumbrae. It has no toilet or bathroom and they have to share a toilet with the rest of the flats. In 1988–89 they paid £56 in rates. This year they are paying £540 in poll tax. They cannot afford to keep the flat on. Even if the local authority had used a multiple of one rather than two, that couple still would have had an increase in their local government bill from £56 to £270—a massive increase, although not as large as if they had paid the poll tax.
The nonsense of the poll tax is shown by the fact that the Duke of Argyll who has a home in London can designate Inveraray castle as a holiday home and will pay the same rates as a poor person with a holiday flat in Millport or Dunoon. The same unfairness applies to the standard poll tax as to the personal poll tax. It does not take account of people's ability to pay. The Government's obsession with the poll tax has forced them to introduce a standard community charge rather than leaving second properties in the rating system, which would have made much more sense than the present proposal.
The Government have exempted those suffering from Alzheimer's disease and other degenerative disorders. It is about time that happened and we are grateful to the Government for doing that. I am sorry that the Minister of State—the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang)—is not present. On six occasions in one Scottish Question Time in February the hon. Gentleman said that it was impossible to bring these people into the system. Perhaps the generosity of the new Secretary of State for the Environment or a change in advice—I notice that there is now a new chief medical officer—have led to the exemption.

9 pm

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang) was extremely keen to achieve this change, but he believed that it had to be an effective change that would stand the test of time? We believe that we have achieved such a change.

Mr. Douglas: The Minister said that it could not be done.

Mr. Maxton: My hon. Friend is right. On six separate occasions in one Question Time the Minister said that it could not be done. Of course we are grateful to him and are delighted at the news. I hope that the Secretary of State will spell out the numbers involved. There seems to be a discrepancy between the press release that the Secretary of


State issued in Scotland and the number of people whom we estimate suffer from Alzheimer's disease and other mental disorders.
We welcome these concessions, but there are no concessions that will get rid of the basic unfairness of the poll tax and the resulting bureaucratic nightmare in Scotland. There is only one way that we can do that—by getting rid of the poll tax completely and returning to another system. That cannot happen under the present Government. They will not give way. They are obsessed with the poll tax. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) was right when he said that the only way to get rid of the poll tax was to get rid of the Government. That will happen at the next general election, and we all look forward to it.

Mr. Malcolm Thornton: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State touched briefly on amendment No. 372 and amendments (a), (b) and (c) thereto, which I tabled. I hope that the brevity of my remarks will not detract from their importance. Amendments (a) and (b) are intended to extend the transitional protection to businesses paying rates before 1 April 1990 even if they move premises after that date. The Government rightly support initiative, enterprise and expansion, but this proposal is a deterrent to all three.
Denying transitional protection to businesses that move will slow the natural progress of successful smaller businesses that are seeking to move to larger premises. In turn, this will leave fewer smaller units available for new businesses wishing to start up. It is important to stress that point. I should like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to pass on my thanks to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has written to me today on this subject. I hope that attention will be drawn to this in the wind-up to the debate. I urge my hon. Friend to reflect on that point. The Government state that they want to support small businesses, which are going through a difficult period. The extension of transitional protection to those who wish to move will be an important safeguard for small businesses during this period.

Mr. William Cash: I am the vice-chairman of the Conservative Back-Bench smaller businesses committee. My hon. Friend may know that we produced a pamphlet last year on this very subject and we feel that in the prevailing economic circumstances, with high interest rates and so on, there is a strong case for my hon. Friend's point to be taken into consideration. I support him in his view.

Mr. Thornton: High interest rates are the type of difficulties to which I referred and are likely to be with us for some little time to come. It is important that the Government take that on board.
Amendment (c) deals with the permitted increase. The Government say that it should be 15 per cent. plus inflation. That means an increase of up to 23 per cent. in real terms, which is a massive increase for any small business to face. My amendment would limit it to 10 per cent., and would have a salutary effect.
Many people in small businesses can give examples which demonstrate clearly that an increase of 23 per cent. would force them out of business. One such example was given to me by a man who owns a butcher's shop in

Stanmore in Middlesex. He paid rates of £2,305·18 in 1988–89. He currently expects a rent review after which, if the property next door is to be used as a guide, he will pay £1,666. His bill, plus the uniform business rate poundage of 36p, will amount to £4,199·76. That is an increase of £1,894·58 or 82 per cent. He has been in business for a long time and has already moved premises, so he will probably go out of business. He will be forced to move and, in moving, will lose any benefits from the transitional protection provisions. That is a double blow.
The Government rightly recognise that small businesses are central to the growth of our economy. They have introduced many small measures during their time in office to assist small businesses in many different ways. I, and the many small business men who have made representations to me and my hon. Friends, feel that the Government could take the small step suggested in my amendment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) said, small businesses will face a particularly difficult time in the coming year or so. I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues to accept this relatively minor amendment and give small businesses the extra help and protection that are vital for their continuing health and growth.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Many good changes were made in the House of Lords, not least some of those that we are discussing now. However, I have listened to the debate with the slight feeling that all this could have been avoided had Ministers listened to some of the points made in Committee on the Local Government Finance Act 1988. Committee members, including myself, raised then the difficulties that the Government are only now starting to tackle. It might have been possible to avoid people in Scotland having to pay the poll tax without these changes having been implemented, and many people who look forward to paying the poll tax in the new year would not have the worries they have even now had the Government listened to the advice given earlier.
Only now, in a series of amendments—and the Secretary of State himself accepts that it is unfortunate to bring in such changes at the tail end of the Bill—are we starting to receive some response. I hope that in part it is a result of the new Secretary of State assuming office. I say that not only because I wish him well in his new job, but because I hope that it marks a change of direction. It may be politically in the Opposition's interest for him to continue along the path of the previous Secretary of State, but for those whom we seek to protect and represent it is better that there should be a fundamental change away from that. If this debate has been sparked off partly as a result of such a change, it is to be welcomed.
Yet, as we have already debated, people's expectations about the introduction of transitional relief will not be met in practice. When I have travelled around my own area and other parts of the country, people—and especially the elderly—say to me that they do not believe that they can afford even the extra £3 a week which they have been told is the maximum extra they will have to pay. I can understand why they are so concerned in view of the low level of pension and benefits that many people receive. However, those people are operating under a delusion. Many will be paying more than an extra £3 a week and they do not understand that it is a notional figure based wholly on the Government's set of figures of what local authorities should be spending, not on what is happening


in their own area. Their worries are based not on what will happen to them, but on the best that may happen to them. In reality, people will have to pay more than that in district after district. Whatever the background arguments—and we could debate indefinitely the politics of why those figures are higher—those people will find it impossible to pay the extra sums without hardship, and some of them may not pay at all.

Mr. David Nicholson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many of those who will benefit from transitional protection are living in low-valued properties at present? If we had kept domestic rates, there would have been a revaluation and they would have had to pay more anyway. The Government's concession takes account of that as well.

Mr. Taylor: The process of revaluation is not as straightforward as that. I am no defender of rates, and I am proud to say that I represent the only party that has argued consistently for a local income tax.
9.15 pm
People are being sold the poll tax and are planning for it on the basis of the misapprehension that the Government have guaranteed increases of no more than £3 a week. That will not happen; the figure is purely notional, and it will not do. In fact, more than 90 per cent. of districts are spending over the Government's target, so the figure is not even a half truth. It is not even a quarter truth.
Moreover, in houses in multiple occupation, only two people will be eligible for relief. That is ridiculous. Earlier, when I told the Secretary of State that he could not defend that ridiculous state of affairs I thought that he would at least admit that the principle was wrong, whether or not he had found a solution. I listened with interest, but the right hon. Gentleman would not even say that. It seems to me obvious that no one can go to a group of people sharing a house and say to them, "We have to pick a couple of you. Which two of you want relief and who wants to pay more?" It does not work like that. People will not be receptive to that idea.
The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) raised some important points concerning the effect on small businesses of the changes in non-domestic rating. In areas that have enjoyed low rates in the past, many small businesses are set to suffer badly, especially in deprived parts of the country with low wages. In Cornwall, for example, local authorities have gone out of their way to keep rates down, and businesses will face large increases. The Government have provided transitional arrangements to allow for 20 per cent. or 15 per cent. increases plus inflation. If Conservative Members are honest, they will admit that such increases will be extremely difficult for small businesses to meet. They will find the burden insufferable. Many small shopkeepers have no alternative source of income from which to find the extra money at a time when living standards are becoming increasingly tight, when mortgage interest rates are increasing and when small businesses have precious little opportunity to expand.
What makes all that harder to bear is that small businesses know that the extra money will go not to improve local services but to maintain a higher level of service elsewhere. Elsewhere the rates will be cut but the services will continue to be provided. They know that their fiercest competitors—the national retailers with a shop on

every street corner—will be able to spread the burden. It will be nothing like as difficult for them as for the small businesses which do not have the option to move from their village or town.
Acceptance of the proposal to ensure a maximum increase of 10 per cent. in one year is the very minimum that people should expect from a Government who claim to understand the difficulties of small businesses. If that is not forthcoming, small business people will draw their own conclusions on the basis of their bank balance and the experience of their national competitors who will benefit from the changes in the years to come.
The changes that the Government are introducing almost monthly in both the poll tax and non-domestic rating arrangements are extremely complicated and far-reaching. It is almost as if the Government tear up the proposals and start again every time they look at the figures. I do not believe that when Ministers first started to debate the changes they understood the difficulties that the proposals would cause for the Government, for the local authorities which would have to implement them, and for the people who would have to pay the charge.
Your best course of action would be to rethink the proposals and admit that the poll tax arrangements do not work as you originally expected them to. However, I accept that you are unlikely to accept that until the ballot box announces its verdict in future.
The Government should recognise the complications that they are causing for the local authorities which must implement this proposal. Even those authorities that are most willing and most supportive of what you are trying to do—and there are some authorities like that—are finding it virtually impossible to keep up with the pace of change that the Government are trying to impose on them in an attempt to meet some of the difficulties that they have finally recognised. At the very least, you would be wise to delay the implementation of the poll tax in England for a year to allow the changes to be properly absorbed and to allow the poll tax to be introduced, if not fairly, at least in an administratively clean way.

Mr. Bill Walker: It is not surprising that we have just heard a Mickey Mouse-type speech. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) was actually addressing you, Mr. Speaker, when he thought that he was addressing the Government Front Bench. He therefore expected the Chair to make the changes that he really believed should be made by the Government. That is not surprising because the hon. Gentleman's speech was of a Mickey Mouse character and that is why it contained Mickey Mouse information.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has left the Chamber and I can well understand why. He referred to a Government White Paper from 1983. The hon. Member and his colleagues always fail to draw attention to the fact that housing benefit was rightly referred to in that White Paper because it runs into hundreds of millions of pounds in Scotland. When they refer to the alleged reduction in public or taxpayers' support for local government, the Opposition somehow forget the massive amounts going to the housing coffers as public support money.

Mr. McAllion: I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman say that housing benefit makes up for any losses incurred through the poll tax. When the


Government introduced their latest changes in housing benefit in Scotland, why were 2,500 people taken out of housing benefit?

Mr. Walker: I never have any difficulty supporting the reasons why I vote or do not vote for things. I hope that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) will be able to look back and say, "When it was required, I at least voted the way that my conscience dictated."
We welcome the transitional relief arrangements in Scotland. Contrary to the noises from the Opposition Benches, many Conservative Members have been lobbying from the outset for such measures.

Mr. James Wallace: Not very successfully.

Mr. Walker: Oh, yes, indeed. If the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues believe that they can ever persuade Governments to change their minds, they are wrong.

Mr. Wallace: The standard community charge amendments which were tabled by the Government in the other place and which are for approval this evening are substantially the same as those that I moved on Report. If the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) has been lobbying for the changes in the transitional arrangements since the poll tax was first introduced in Scotland, why has he been so singularly unsuccessful until his English colleagues started bleating?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman should know that I am the last chap that he should take on when talking about a unitary Parliament. I support the unitary Parliament. Through my hon. Friends in English constituencies, it is right and proper that I should bring pressure to bear on the Government in whatever way that I want to bring it. I have no hesitation in saying that I do that all the time because I believe that the unitary Parliament is a protection that we all enjoy. It is important that we can look at different aspects of our legislative system and enjoy the benefits. That is what the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and his colleagues are prepared to throw away with their nonsensical ideas about breaking up this unitary Parliament and have small Mickey Mouse assemblies in different parts of the country which will take Mickey Mouse decisions of a kind that we have just heard described by the hon. Member for Truro.
It is important to Scots that we are to backdate these changes. One wonders what Scottish National party-controlled Angus district council will do. It has been nasty to people who are not paying the community charge, although it is party policy not to pay it. The council has been nasty to individuals who are entitled to rebates but who, because of difficulties, are paying only a certain amount. Those with rebates will now be able to pay, and the Scottish National party will again find itself facing two or three directions at once.
I welcome the changes to the standard community charge. In a large rural constituency such as mine, many people will be able to enjoy the benefits that are brought about by the multipliers. Contrary to some of the noises from the Opposition, these changes will be welcomed, and I am delighted that the Government have responded quickly to hon. Members' requests.

Mr. Douglas: I do not agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). One of the changes announced by the Government proves that non-payment works. Scottish hon. Members pressed amendments in respect of Alzheimer's disease, and we were told by the Government that they could not be accepted. We pressed for transitional arrangements, but we were told that they could not be made, and the Scots proceeded to pay—some of them did—on 1 April 1989. All the "concessions" have been achieved by English Back-Bench Members who are frightened for their seats, and they have not yet paid a penny. Non-payment works.
The Secretay of State alluded to registration in Scotland. In one authority it is 106 per cent. The Secretary of State should not be taken in by that percentage. Enormous registration anomalies always take place. The threatened non-registration penalty was severe. If one did not register, one was fined, and the fine could be repeated. One of my constituents received five forms. He did not register, but he is on the register. I have never registered, Mrs. Douglas has never registered, and my daughter has never registered, but we are all on the register. Poll tax registration officers are very efficient.
In Fife, there is a zealous poll tax registration officer named Mr. Thompson. He has registered people who have not completed registration forms. If the Secretary of State does not discuss these matters with anybody else in Scotland, through the good offices of the Secretary of State for Scotland he should speak to the poll tax registration officer in Fife. He described the tax as crazy. In a report to Fife regional council, he said that the tax will collapse because of its internal contradictions. It will be the duty of all hon. Members to pursue those internal contradictions. That is why I may not be too gracious this evening. I welcome these changes. The more changes there are, the more absurd the tax becomes.
Let us consider the changes in relation to Alzheimer's disease and to the severely mentally impaired. How can it be fair to take people from homes where, at present, they are exempt from making a payment and bring them into the community without wanting to establish the same basis for exemption? Those concerned will have to go through the humiliation of declaring an individual to be severely mentally impaired. We must ask what the Government are trying to do in this task. The Government are bringing many people into the tax bracket who were not in it before by taking people out of homes, where they were not paying the tax, and bringing them into the community. In my view, it is an obnoxious and nauseating——

Mr. Chris Patten: I was interested in what the hon. Gentleman was saying because as a constituency Member of Parliament, I have been involved—I am sure that this is true of the hon. Gentleman also—for a number of years with local organisations working with those suffering from senile dementia. I have taken up cases of people suffering from senile dementia who have been paying rates year in and year out. yet although that issue was around for decade after decade, I do not remember it creating much concern anywhere in the House, including among Opposition Members. The change that we are making regarding those suffering from senile dementia—I use that phrase deliberately rather than saying "Alzheimer's disease"—is extremely important.

Mr. Douglas: I accept that the Secretary of State is a humane man, but, with great respect to him, I do not think that he is grasping the nature of the point that I am trying to make. I am not excusing the fact that people might have paid rates and that that might have placed a burden on a particular individual; I am simply trying to illustrate to the Secretary of State that to avail themselves of this exemption, a husband, wife or parent will have to declare that their spouse or offspring is severely mentally impaired. Perhaps the Secretary of State cannot grasp the significance of that, but, as a parent, I can.

Mr. David Hunt: That is a matter for a general practitioner.

Mr. Douglas: The Minister mentions doctors, but there are several gateways to this. Not only does a doctor have to be consulted, but the individual concerned has to be in receipt of certain benefits. Naturally, I welcome the extension, but, as I have argued before, if we are to extend the provisions, why not take the fact that an individual is in receipt of benefit as being the relevant factor, instead of the relatives having to go through the procedure of declaring somebody severely mentally impaired? Moreover, why do we not illustrate that fact on the public record by removing that person from the register?
If the Secretary of State cannot accept that, so be it, but I have another illustration for him. If the individual concerned were to remain in a nursing home, he or she would be exempt from the charge and would not have to pay the poll tax. However, if that person is brought into the community, the procedure that I have described must be gone through. I rest my case there.
My basic argument is that the more the legislation is changed, the more absurd it will become. The Government are now moving away from their basic contention in relation to the standard community charge, which was that the poll tax should be a charge for services rendered, because the changes that they are making in the standard community charge make it a tax on property——

Mr. John Home Robertson: Not enough.

Mr. Douglas: My hon. Friend says, "Not enough", and I shall return to that point because I want to face the argument about the Labour party's policy changes. I do not know what they are and—thankfully or otherwise—I am not responsible for them.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Who is?

Mr. Douglas: The hon. Lady asks, "Who is?". I would argue forcibly that if we are to have a multi-based system of taxation, we should not exempt property. Although that is what the Government are trying to do, they have partially failed. All the arguments that they have advanced about old widows living in big houses and paying rates on those big houses, while inhabitants of a local authority house where three or four adults are working may find themselves absolved from paying rates, fall down on examination. That individual is heir to a gain which could be liquidated but the person in the local authority house is not.
In certain areas, there has been a transfer of title from one section of the community to another because of poll tax. Property values in Edinburgh have soared because the burden on the house has been reduced. Can anyone in their senses suggest that that is fair?
In my constituency, the Tories in the village of Saline argued that they ought to have the rates burden reduced because the village was remote. They achieved that. Now people in Saline, where property values are high, pay the same poll tax as my folk in Steelend, who cannot get proper roads.
The argument that it is a charge for services rendered—like the television licence—falls down. Generally, one hopes that television reception is the same throughout Britain. Sometimes we hope not, in view of some of the programmes we see.

Mr. Bill Walker: It is nonsense to say that television reception is the same throughout Britain. Anyone who represents a rural Highland constituency knows that because parts of the constituency do not receive some programmes. The hon. Gentleman mentioned an old lady living in a large house, but it could have been a rented house.

Mr. Douglas: It may have been a rented house. Most of the examples given of unfairness relate to property, and many relate to properties whose value had been enhanced and now have been further enhanced by the poll tax.
I shall not argue about television reception. If it is not the same, the hon. Gentleman will no doubt kick up like billy—and say that we deserve the same if we are paying the same licence fee.
My folk in Dunfermline and north-east Fife want the same services throughout the Fife region but there are differences in poll tax levels. Services in Auchtermuchty, where I live, are not as good as they are in St. Andrews. How will that anomaly be cleared up by the poll tax? Instead of starting from a level base, we are starting with a system that has numerous anomalies, which is illustrated by the attempts at safety nets and transitional arrangements.
I hope that there will be a Labour Government and that my colleagues will be in it but I must tell them that, after the promises the Labour party has made, if they come to power on Thursday, by the following Monday there will be very few payers of the poll tax in Scotland. Anyone who doubts that should look at the situation now. The number of non-payers may be between 500,000 and 700,000. Many of us will go to Hampden next week. I hope that there will be 60,000 people there. We former Govanites are extremely flexible when it comes to football matters. If there are 60,000 people in the bowl there, four times that number will certainly not be paying poll tax. If that is not a mass movement, I do not know what is. My hon. Friends have been looking for a mass movement to lead. It is there in Scotland and it is not necessarily being led.
The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State ignore that movement at their peril. Dislike of the tax in Scotland is enormous. We are supposedly paying that tax, but we see the concessions that the English have already got by non-payment and, therefore, the feelings of dislike towards that tax will increase. That feeling is felt across the political spectrum and is not confined to Labour party supporters.
The tax is disliked because it is unfair, unjust and undemocratic. I was not at the Labour party conference, but I read a report in The Times which recounted how my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said that our fundamental disagreement with the tax was that it was immoral. It is immoral to use the state


apparatus to take from those who do not have and give to those who do. It is immoral to take from a couple aged 92 and 89 who live in my constituency. Because that couple have £6,000 in the bank, they must pay the full whack—the same as the Earl of Elgin. That is immoral. If the Government do not understand that, it is clear that, having sown the wind, they will reap the whirlwind at the next general election.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, last year, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) was reported in the Glasgow Herald as saying that all responsible politicians have now rejected the case for a mass campaign of non-payment? What is the hon. Gentleman's message to his own Front Bench?

Mr. Douglas: I do not believe that my hon. Friends would welcome any great message from me on this occasion. I have made my position clear. I do not want to break the law, but if someone asked me the most effective way in which to stop the tax I would cite the English example and tell them not to pay it. Ministers may murmur as much as they like, but if Conservative Back Benchers had meekly taken the Government at their word and accepted that the tax was perfect and wonderful, the concessions given tonight would never have been achieved. We tried to get those concessions, but because we did not have the political arm-twisting necessary——

Mr. Bill Walker: Nonsense.

Mr. Douglas: Those concessions have been achieved because the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee) and a former Minister at the Northern Ireland Office—both of whom are absent now—strongly suggested to the Secretary of State that if such concessions were not given they would lose their seats at the next election. They did not say that they would not administer that tax or that they would not necessarily pay it, but, because of their representations, concessions have been made in England and Wales before a penny piece of the poll tax has been paid. I wish those hon. Members well in their campaign.
I must tell the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, however, that there ain't enough sheriff officers in Scotland to collect from the non-payers. No one should try to get a warrant sale in Dunfermline, West—don't anybody try that. They will need a lot more than the police force of Fife to carry out that procedure. There will be massive opposition to the poll tax because its fundamental flaw is its immorality.

Mr. David Nicholson: I listened to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) with care and with particular enjoyment when he pronounced so loudly that "non-payment works." As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State suggested, he should convey that sentiment to the Leader of the Opposition, perhaps through the medium of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who seems to have his own unauthorised programme on a variety of matters.
I welcome the transitional proposals that have been announced by my right hon. Friend. During the past few months the feedback that I have received from my constituents—no doubt my hon. Friends have had a similar experience, has not, surprisingly, been opposition

to what is the most significant change to the domestic local government finance system—the extension of liability to pay to the third or fourth working adult in a family. Most people accept that that is a just change and it is the counterpart to the example of the widow who lives in a fairly large house and who pays a large rate bill. The complaint has partly been about people on low incomes, but I shall refer to that when I talk about rebates.
The main problem which I have encountered—I think that my hon. Friends have encountered similar ones—is the result of the out-of-date system of values in relation to local government finance which we have in this country. The rateable system is 16 years out of date, which means that anomalies have occurred in all sorts of constituencies. People on relatively modest incomes in one sort of property pay up to £700 in rates a year in my constituency. People on similarly modest incomes, who live in different sorts of property, find that because of the vagaries of valuation they pay only £170 or £180 on rates, without rebates.
9.45 pm
It was necessary for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues to respond to this difficulty. Certainly, those of us who have lived in London know that revaluations took place on an ad hoc basis. My house was revalued some years ago. When we started living in it, it was a building site and when we left it three years ago it was still a building site, but its rateable value had doubled because someone from the Inland Revenue decided that we should pay higher rates.
I tabled a question to my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities and he replied:
Since the last general revaluation…rateable values…have been altered most commonly because of a change in the physical state of the property or in its environment. I estimate that some 3,200,000 alterations have been made to the rateable values of domestic property in England since 1982."—[Official Report, 3 Nov. 1989; Vol. 159, c.275.] 
A certain amount of ad hoc revaluation has taken place all over the country, and so it was right for us to take the measures which we have.
As I said in an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor), those who complain about the change in their bills as a result of a move from rates on low value properties to the community charge must bear in mind that if domestic rates had been kept—particularly for those living in terraced houses in urban areas where there is strong pressure for occupation or cottages in tourist-favoured areas such as I have in my constituency—their rates would have increased under the old system.
I wish to welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's concessions on the disabled. I am sure that he will confirm that the Alzheimer's disease concession will be extended to those with senile dementia. There has been some concern about that, and my right hon. Friend made a telling intervention in an earlier speech.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) made an important point about advertising. It is right that my hon. Friends and Ministers in other Departments should get right the advertising of this changeover. The television advertising of the water authorities has not entirely been a standard to follow. I hope that we shall learn from that. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West made the point that it is important


that those entitled to rebates should apply for them. The rebate system is more generous than Opposition Members concede and many of our constituents are aware.
I tabled a question to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard)—the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security. It was answered on 1 November. She revealed that next year, on a community charge of £250, a pensioner couple aged 60 to 74 who were not working would obtain the minimum rebate up to an income of £123 a week—which is quite a way up the income scale for pensioners. She said that a couple with two children under 11, who were working, would, on a community charge of £250, obtain a minimum rebate on an income of up to £147–£148 a week. She said that for a community charge of £300, the income for the pensioner couple would be £134 a week and the income for the couple with two children would be £158. Those are useful figures.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for picking up my earlier point. The Opposition have no argument with advertising that points out what rebates are available. We do not like the poll tax, but we want people to have all the rebates that are available. We do not want an advertising campaign that tries to sell this immoral tax as something that is as good as sliced bread and in the interests of the people. The Government must stick to telling people what benefits are available. If they try to sell the political concept of the poll tax, that would be objectionable.

Mr. Nicholson: I am sure that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues are aware of the rules and conventions that apply to Government advertising.
I welcome the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton), who dealt with business rates. There is a problem for small businesses that will be encountered throughout the southern constituencies, but I must emphasise that it is not caused by the uniform business rate. Again, we come back to the issue of revaluation. In Somerset, had the uniform business rate been introduced on present rateable values, it would he 4p or 5p lower than the current rate set by the party of the hon. Member for Truro—the Liberals, the SLD or whatever it calls itself. The rateable value is 16 years out of date. There will be difficulties, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will carefully consider what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby.
Nevertheless, in the long term there will be advantages for business and industry throughout the country. They will operate on up-to-date values and, most important, on a single national rate. The current system is quite ridiculous—as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) must know—with businesses taking off, relocating and reinvesting so that they can avoid the very high rates in Sheffield, Liverpool, Manchester, and parts of the midlands.
There is strong justice and fairness in the reform of the business rates that acts as a convoy for the introduction of the community charge, which itself is more controversial. However, as my right hon. Friend knows, I have consistently supported the Government in their proposals for the community charge.

Mr. Pike: We are discussing important amendments. I felt sorry for the Secretary of State when he opened the debate, because he has been saddled with a difficult job. It

is rare for me to feel sorry for a Conservative Minister, but the right hon. Gentleman has been left with a Bill that he did not begin and that has been changed several times during its passage, especially during its stages in another place. The right hon. Gentleman not only has to defend all that; he has also to defend the poll tax, even though it was introduced by his predecessor. He is like a man trying to walk with his shoe laces tied together. The simple fact is that, although the transitional arrangements are an improvement, they cannot overcome the basic fault of the poll tax, which is the failure to base it on fairness and on the ability to pay.
Some of the amendments relate to matters that we tried to impress upon the Government during the many hours that we spent in Committee a year ago, but the then Secretary of State was not prepared to concede any of them. I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) and the Secretary of State both refer to revaluation. The Goverment have a cheek to refer to the fact that there has not been a revaluation for 16 years, because their first action when they were elected in 1979 was to cancel the proposed revaluation in England.

Mr. Chris Patten: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House who cancelled the revaluation that was due after 1963?

Mr. Pike: It goes back further even than 1963. The Government have been in office for 10 years. They know of the problems that arose in Scotland, and their cancellation of revaluation in England led to the problem that now confronts us, with valuations that are 16 years out of date. It is incredible that the Government want to keep turning the clock back. They will soon start talking about the actions of a Labour Government in 1929. The Government's cancellation of revaluation in their first week of office in 1979 created the current problems.
The Secretary of State asked whether any right hon. or hon. Member wholly agrees with the present rating system. I admit that it creates problems and anomalies, but it is no use replacing a flawed system with one that is even worse.
Many different issues are covered by the amendments before us, and I appreciate your difficulty, Mr. Speaker, in selecting amendments for debate. As to the likely business rate that was announced this afternoon, we shall not really know what it will be until revaluation. When business rates are finally revealed, they are likely to be met by uproar in many parts of the country. Also, although the Government promise that there will be consultations between local authorities and businesses, they will come to regret the fact that a locally fixed rate is to be replaced by one that is determined by central Government. That will serve to sever many of the valuable links and relationships between local authorities and the businesses in their areas.
Exempt categories were debated at length in Committee and on Report, but the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor was unwilling to move further on them. We welcome the additional exemption categories and hope that the Secretary of State will continue to exhibit more thoughtfulness and concern than did his predecessor—and will, as time goes on, and as he becomes even more aware of the difficulties created by the poll tax, increase their number.
I acknowledge also the right hon. Gentleman's statement that those receiving benefit will, by the nature of the taper, have only 15p in the pound deducted rather than


the present figure of 20p. We welcome that improvement, but I still believe that it is only half the story. People have yet to be told how much they will receive, and how much they will have left. There is an element of "kidology" involved, and people should not leap with joy until they know the full story.
Protection for property of a lower rateable value is of concern not only to Burnley but to north-east Lancashire as a whole. The Secretary of State surely recognises that property there has the lowest rateable values of the whole of England. Pendle is the lowest rated and Burnley the third lowest, with an average rateable value of only £103.

Mr. Winnick: Is my hon. Friend up to date with the latest information? Interviewed on the BBC's Nine o'clock News, the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee) made it clear that the poll tax would cause tremendous difficulties, and would be of acute disadvantage to his constituentts.

Mr. Pike: I thank my hon. Friend for that information. I did not know that the hon. Gentleman had been on television, although he asked a question about the issue earlier this afternoon. That is one reason why he left ministerial office: he recognises that the poll tax will lose him his seat. His constituency is adjacent to mine, and he will be faced with considerable problems next year——

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Lords amendments to the Local Government and Housing Bill may he proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Lords amendments again considered.

Question again proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Pike: The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee) is clearly very concerned about the issue of rateable value, and rightly so. It is a pity that a year ago he kept trooping through the Lobbies and voting for the measure.
Hon. Members have mentioned the fact that only two people in a property will receive protection, and the problem of determining which two it should be. The Minister must tell us how that will be dealt with, as it will cause considerable friction. I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, will be interested to hear his response.
The amendments that the Government will push through tonight will not solve the problem of the poll tax legislation. The very fact that the arrangements are transitional makes that certain—and, as the Secretary of State has said himself, the Government cannot legislate for permanent protection. Of course they cannot; if they did, they would be admitting that the legislation that they forced through last year was nonsense. The fact that they are having to do the same thing now shows the folly of their policy. As the temporary arrangements are phased out, people will find themselves faced with the full unfairness and inequity of the legislation.
The real reason for the Lords amendments—the reason why we are debating them today and why they were forced through the other House—is not that the Government wish to be fairer, but that they want to gerrymander and, if possible, help some Conservative Back Benchers to save their seats in a couple of years, before the poll tax is fully payable. The Government have not really made a generous

concession; they are trying to con the people. They will fail, however, and the poll tax legislation will be repealed as soon as the Labour party takes office.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I wish to respond briefly to the points raised by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. We welcome the concessions that have been introduced, especially those relating to the standard charge. The Government amendment is very similar to new clause 1, moved on 14 June by my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). On that occasion the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), said that the new clause was
based on a misconception that there are significant differences between the positions north and south of the border and that the English and Welsh arrangements are more flexible. That is not so as I shall seek to explain."—[Official Report, 14 June 1989; Vol. 154, c. 1021.]
That debate revolved around the fact that we believed that it was so, and that changes were needed. At that time the Government said that the new clause was not necessary and resisted it. We welcome the fact that our arguments have now prevailed, and that the Government have recognised their strength, producing an amendment that gives much wider powers to both the local authorities and the Secretary of State than are contained in the guidelines given to us by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. I am grateful for the Minister's guidelines, but they raise a few questions that I hope he will address in his reply.
He distinguished between categories that would be zero rated as of right and categories that would be zero rated at the local authority's discretion. Into which categories are student nurses and doctors who work in hospitals likely to fall? Student nurses are incensed at not having been treated as students on the ground that they receive an allowance, although it is very low. Therefore, they will be forced to pay the full charge out of their very low allowance. That will represent a real cut in the allowance. Student nurses have understandably become cynical over the years. Every time that an allowance is reviewed they usually find that the cost of, say, meals has increased by more than the allowance and that the real value of the allowance is eroded year by year. Student nurses will be significantly worse off under the proposals. I think that the Minister implied that local authorities will have discretions, but the Government ought to make the position clear.
The same applies to hospital doctors. They have made representations to me and, I am sure, to other hon. Members about the implication, which they resent, that they may have to pay the poll tax on their home and also on their residence in hospital if they are resident there for more than half the time. Therefore, they would have to pay the poll tax twice. That would be an injustice and would amount to double taxation, to which they should not be subjected. I think that the Minister also implied that that would he left to the discretion of local authorities. If local authorities decided to exercise their discretion, the cost would have to be met by all the other poll tax payers. Local authorities would therefore be under pressure to resist discretionary reductions of that kind. As the cost of the National Health Service is met by the Government, they ought to agree to fund that concession.
The Minister did not refer to second homes and holiday homes, about which there has been much correspondence and many representations from both sides of the House. His omission leads me to think that the Government will not address the issue. If Barratts or any other large


organisation runs a time share operation, it does not pay poll tax on its property; it is assessed at the commercial rate. However, an individual with a modest holiday home —perhaps a cottage with a couple of bedrooms that is very low rated—has to pay the standard charge. Similarly, a farmer who wishes to supplement his farm income may let a few cottages on his farm to tourists. He will be squeezed out of a profitable business by having to absorb the standard charge.
Will the Minister clarify whether local authorities will be able to exercise discretion? That would be an improvement. If they can, will that fact be taken into account when calculating revenue support grant? I hope that I am right in assuming that local authorities will have that discretion. I see that the Minister is nodding, and I am grateful to him. If it is a modest property, it is reasonable that local authorities should be able to set a ceiling so that the standard charge does not have to be paid twice. The letting of a few cottages may be an important supplement to a farmer's business. The same discretion ought to apply to him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) has already referred to the fact that the £3 a week rebate is certainly an improvement, although very late in the day, and that it is based on the Government's assessment of what the poll tax in any given authority ought to be rather than on the actual outturn. If that is the case, it is a cheat because the Government know perfectly well that those targets were unrealistic and that virtually no authority, including those controlled by the Conservative party, has been able to achieve them. The rebate should be based on the average poll tax rate rather than on Government targets which were never realistic.
The Minister made no reference to the safety net in Scotland. As a Member for a constituency in Grampian region, I feel very strongly that Grampian region poll tax payers have had to pay between £46 and £54 per head, according to where they live, towards the cost of the safety net for Glasgow and Strathclyde. I fully accept that the needs of Glasgow and Strathclyde justify that degree of safety netting, but I do not accept that the burden should fall on Grampian region poll tax payers rather than on the general taxpayer.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can give the hon. Gentleman some reassurance on that point. The safety net, in its present form, will be phased out over three years. That means that those authorities which contributed to the self-financing safety net this year will receive their revenue support grant entitlement in full for 1990–91. Areas such as Glasgow which have benefited from the safety net will receive protection for a further three years, with the cost being met by the Exchequer.

Mr. Bruce: I thank the Minister for that helpful information. I still have slight reservations as to whether we will get the full amount back, but I accept the Minister's assurance in good faith.
I do not wish to be sour as we have had some effect and my colleagues and I who have campaigned consistently and promoted amendments have been vindicated. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) does democracy a great disservice when he says that Opposition Members are wasting their time as the Government never accept suggestions from them. I do not believe that is the case. However, politics being what it is, Conservative

Members respond only when they see their majorities being whittled away. But they have responded, and most of the Government's concessions today are those that we pressed for a year ago. I do not believe that the Government will recover any ground in Scotland because people in Scotland know that the Government care not a docken for the plight of the Scots who have to face the imposition of the poll tax and that the Government were prepared to act only when the English majority was threatened. I am quite sure that Scottish voters will not return to the fold with any gratitude.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I shall speak on my amendment opposing Lords amendments Nos. 332, 347 and 421. However, before doing so I should like to use some of the leeway that you, Mr. Speaker, have allowed hon. Members who did not get in on the statement on the poll tax by saying that we would be able to catch your eye and raise those points in tonight's debate.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I said, with ingenuity.

Mr. Cohen: I am using the best of my ingenuity.
The figures provided by the Secretary of State for the Environment in his statement this afternoon show a lot of sleight of hand. He was not comparing like with like. Table 2 was supposed to be comparing the rates with the community charge, but the rates figure included the local spending discretion—the amount that the local authority was spending on local needs. That figure was not in strict compliance with the Government's targets, but the community charge or poll tax level is strictly in compliance with Government policy. The Government's level of spending for local authorities is absurdly unreal and would mean massive cutbacks in my authority of Waltham Forest, for example. The Government have allowed only 4 per cent. for inflation, which is ludicrous. Under the safety net, Waltham Forest is having to pay £46 per person, thereby subsidising Tory-controlled Wandsworth.
All summer, Conservative Members bleated that the purpose of the safety net was to subsidise overspenders. Let us hear no talk of Waltham Forest being an overspender, because we are being penalised by having to pay into the safety net. The figures announced in the statement show that needs in inner-London boroughs are still not being properly recognised. There is still gross unfairness, because some boroughs are paying half the amount that their neighbouring boroughs are paying, purely at the flick of the Minister's pen.
10.15 pm
I oppose Lords amendments Nos. 332, 347 and 421, which relate to privacy. The disclosure of information is the thin end of the wedge, yet under those amendments, which the Government slipped through in the other place, disclosure will be allowed. This is the first case in which the Government have allowed data unconnected with the poll tax to be disclosed. Why should poll tax data be used for purposes other than the poll tax? The Minister should explain why, under this gaping hole in the legislation, virtually unrestricted access to information will be allowed.
Lords amendment Nos. 332 and 347 to schedule 5, which relate to the poll tax in England and Wales, and Lords amendment No. 421 to schedule 6, which applies to the poll tax in Scotland, should be rejected because they do not guarantee that anonymity will be preserved. The use of


the words "registration officer" in the amendment means that when the registration officer discloses information the recipient will be able to gain access to other lists in the possession of the registration officer and obtain personal information about an individual. The poll tax officer could disclose that three people live at 55 Acacia avenue. Two of those people could be exempted from payment because they are in prison or because they have Alzheimer's disease. The poll tax officer cannot supply the names of those people, but the recipient can check the electoral registers, telephone lists and other public lists to discover the names of the people listed. He can even use the Local Government Finance Act 1988, which introduced the poll tax, and check the entry in the extract of the poll tax register for 55 Acacia avenue to discover who lives there. Anonymous information goes to the wall. The fact that someone's name does not appear on the register can also be useful intelligence. The position under Lords amendment No. 421 is even worse, because the poll tax register can be photocopied as well as inspected.
The Lords amendments should be rejected because there is no guarantee that the Secretary of State will not use his powers to obtain anonymous information from other sources available to him, such as social security records. He can reconstitute personal information relating directly to people. He may misuse that information. He may withhold the social security benefit to which a person is entitled in order to punish him for being behind in his poll tax payments. There is no limitation on the availability and subsequent use—or perhaps misuse—of this sensitive information. The Government do not seem to care about protecting this sensitive information which can easily be handed over and get into the wrong hands.
There is no guarantee that anonymous information will not be copied on to the data bases of the police, immigration service, security service, credit reference agencies and other organisations with long lists of addresses. Again, big brother rides under the poll tax rules.
The Lords amendments are deficient in that there is no attempt to stop the recipient of the information attempting to reconstitute it to identify individuals. There is no attempt to stop any linking of anonymous information to the personalised information that a recipient already has. The reason that the Government advanced in the Lords for favouring these measures is bogus. They said that the information could be used for planning purposes. Local authorities can already use section 6 of the Census Act 1980 and call upon the staff of the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys to use the census data for planning purposes. The Minister can also call upon OPSC staff for statistics. Using the Census Act has several advantages over using poll tax data for planning—information is kept anonymous because it is protected by OPCS staff who are alert to the privacy issues involved in handling it. By contrast, local authorities seem to have been hauled up before the data protection authorities on a number of privacy issues involving the poll tax register. Under the Lords amendments, there is virtually no privacy restraint on local authorities.
The Lords amendments could lead to the back-door selling of poll tax data in the same way as information on the electoral register is sold. As with the electoral register, the so-called Government of choice do not give the

individual the opportunity to object to disclosure of information about himself. The poll tax rides a coach and horses through personal privacy. It is a bailiff's and snooper's joy and a computer voyeur's delight. The Lords amendments are yet another example of individual privacy being sacrificed to expedite the implementation of this repressive, inefficient and unpopular poll tax.

Mr. McAllion: Amendment No. 261 deals with the rate at which the standard community charge can now be levied. In dealing with it, the Under-Secretary of State listed a series of properties that would as of right be zero rated. He mentioned empty mansions, and the homes of prisoners, full-time students at university and college and those who had died. He went on to describe a second category, whereby a local authority would have discretion to designate properties that should be zero rated and included those properties where the owners' employment required them to be away from home for a long period.
I should like to ask the Minister about another category of properties—local authority houses where the tenant is a long-term hospital patient but wishes to retain the tenancy and keep the house furnished while he is in hospital. In February this year, the Scottish Office wrote to the Tayside poll tax registration officer, saying that in these cases
the liability to pay the standard charge would fall on the local authority as owner of the property since council houses are let on short, renewable leases.
How will such a property be affected by the changes that the Minister has described tonight? Will he or his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State give us a specific explanation? Will local authorities be allowed to zero-rate at their discretion local authority houses whose tenants are long-term patients in hospital, but who wish to keep their houses furnished and to keep the tenancy during that period?
The transitional proposals are supposed to protect groups of people who are affected by the poll tax. It is alleged protection because, as the Minister said, the limit of £3 will be applied only when the local authority imposes a poll tax that is in line with the Government's assumptions. In the case of my own district council of Dundee, the Government assumed that the poll tax should be £274 in the current year. In reality, the council was forced to levy £324—£50 or 18 per cent. above the Government's assumption. Will the Minister say that when the transitional arrangements are in place in Dundee everyone will be entitled to the limit of no more than £3 irrespective of the level of poll tax levied by the district council—even though that figure is higher than the Government's assumptions about the poll tax for Dundee?
We are expected to believe that we are dealing with a genuine, if sudden, conversion by the Government or with a sudden concern for those who are worst off. I use the word "sudden" advisedly. In Scotland, we have been dealing with the poll tax for a long time—longer than any other part of this allegedly unitary British state. We have a long track record on the poll tax and I have been in correspondence with Ministers for some time on the poll tax rebate schemes in particular.
About 18 months ago, I wrote to the Minister of State, who was then responsible for the rebate scheme. His reply gave me a series of assurances about the rebate scheme. He wrote:
we have taken full account of the need to ensure that payment of the community charge is not an unacceptable burden for those with low incomes".


He went further and said that the Government had taken full account of those on low incomes, whether or not they were in employment. The Minister had unlimited confidence in the virtue of the rebate scheme for people in Scotland such as the unemployed, the disabled, the handicapped, the low paid, single parents and pensioners.
Six months later, I received another letter from the same Minister on the same subject. His confidence in the rebate scheme in Scotland was still completely undiminished. He wrote:
Overall, I do not accept that the community charge will represent a significant shift of the tax burden from the rich to the poor.
He told me that the winning and losing households would be roughly equal and that for half of all those affected, the difference would he less than £1 a week. He also told me that there would be substantial benefits for those who were least well off. He singled out two groups and said that 90 per cent. of single pensioners and 85 per cent. of single adult households would be better off.
Yet in the debate tonight both the Secretary of State and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), have referred repeatedly to single pensioners as a group who will especially benefit from the transitional arrangements. It is passing strange that, according to the Minister who had previous responsibility for the poll tax, there was no need for any transitional protection because they would all be better off, yet we are now told that they will be better off as a result of the transitional arrangements which have been introduced a year after the Minister made that claim.
The last sentence of the letter sent to me a year ago sums up the Government's confidence in their rebate scheme. The Minister wrote:
In all cases—
and I emphasise the word "all"—
the rebate scheme will ensure that nobody is called upon to pay an unreasonable amount.
That letter was sent in October 1988. Why is it that a full year later we need a whole poll tax package of further concessions? Are the Government saying that the Minister was lying to me a year ago when he said that the rebate scheme then available would ensure that nobody would be called on to pay an unreasonable amount?— [Interruption.] I never alleged anything of the kind. I am merely asking whether that is what the Government say now. At that time, the Minister told me that the rebate scheme would ensure that nobody would be called upon to pay an unreasonable amount——

Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that the hon. Gentleman was heard clearly by those of us on the Conservative Benches to have said that the Minister was lying.

Mr. Speaker: I certainly did not hear that.

Mr. McAllion: I said no such thing, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman did allege that, I am sure that he would wish to withdraw, but I did not hear him say it.

Mr. McAllion: I would certainly have wished to withdraw, but I never said anything of the kind. I was merely trying to explain to Conservative Members that

Ministers are now telling the House the exact opposite of what Scottish Ministers were telling me a year ago. The House deserves some explanation of that discrepancy. If no one was being asked to pay an unreasonable amount a year ago, why do we now need a package of concessions and transitional protection for those who are, indeed, expected to pay an unreasonable amount? That is a serious matter
10.30 pm
I have talked about what happened 18 months and a year ago. Six months ago we received from the Department of Social Security a so-called short paper dealing with poll tax rebates. We were told that from 1990 onwards the arrangements in England and Wales would be virtually identical to those in Scotland. Tonight we have been told that from now on the arrangements in Scotland will be virtually the same as those in England and Wales. In six months the Government have turned the whole thing round. They now tell us that what was happening in Scotland six months ago was unsatisfactory and that the arrangements will have to be changed to bring them into line with those for England and Wales.
The Department of Social Security paper contained a nice table showing a poll tax figure of £300, by which the Government sought to illustrate their point. As it turned out, that was a very convenient figure from the Government's point of view. With poll tax at £300, those on income support—which has been increased by £1·15 for a single person under 25, £1·30 for single people over 25 and £2·30 for couples—will be no worse or better off. It was, therefore, convenient for the Government to use the £300 figure in the tables illustrating the Department's paper.
In the real world, however, authorities are not levying poll taxes of £300. They are levying poll taxes well in excess of £300. In my constituency, for example, the figure is £324. Conservative Members may say that that will mean that those on income support will be only marginally worse off. How can they justify a system that makes those on income support marginally worse off and Scottish Office Ministers £1,100 a year better off? No system that does that can be justified.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that had we retained a Conservative administration at Tayside the community charge would have been about £120 a year less?

Mr. McAllion: At the last budget meeting, the Conservative opposition on Tayside regional council suggested a reduction of 0·75 per cent. in expenditure. That would make very little difference to the poll tax; the poll tax might even be bigger as a result of that opposition's activities.
I am trying to drag home to the House the fact that for 18 months I was repeatedly told by Scottish Ministers that there was no cause for concern—that everything was fine and that the rebate scheme was marvellous. Suddenly after the Tory party conference in Blackpool everything changed. All bets are off. Everything must change in Scotland and Scotland must be brought into line with England and Wales. Have the Government suddenly come to their senses? No; Conservative Back Benchers representing marginal seats have suddenly come to their senses.[Interruption.] There are very few Scottish Tory


Back Benchers, and it is most unlikely that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) has come to his senses.
In December 1988 Alzheimer's Scotland wrote a letter to every hon. Member in Scotland and I am sure that the hon. Member for Tayside, North received a copy. It wrote:
It seems, however, that people with degenerative brain disorders such as dementia will not qualify. In the latter stages of dementia, a sufferer may lose the power of speech, may appear to understand almost nothing, may fail to recognise close family members and may be doubly incontinent. It is both illogical and unfair to attempt to differentiate between such people and others with conditions causing a similar degree of mental impairment.
The director of Alzheimer's Scotland wrote to me:
Alzheimer's Scotland have drawn the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland to this … state of affairs.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office wrote to me in February 1989:
This is clearly a difficult question, but I can assure you it is one to which the Government gave considerable thought before deciding that people with dementia should not be exempt from paying the community charge.
That is what the Minister of State, Scottish Office, called excessive keenness on the Government's part. After considerable thought, they decided that they were not going to exempt sufferers from Alzheimer's disease and other degenerative brain disorders. Only as a result of pressure from public opinion in Scotland and from Government Back Benchers did the Government make any concessions.
The Government are running scared now, but not because they have lost the argument. They lost the argument a long time ago. Now for the first time they can see the implications of losing the argument in the House and in England and Wales, where they will lose many marginal seats. The Government are papering over the cracks in an unjust and unworkable system of local government finance. No one wants it, especially not in Scotland where we have experienced it.
I have decided that I will not willingly pay the poll tax and it will have to be taken from me. I have received threatening letters from my local regional council stating that I had better pay up in 14 days or else. However, other people in my street have not yet even received their poll tax payment books. That is the kind of administrative chaos facing regional councils. If the system will not work in Scotland it will not work elsewhere. The poll tax has degenerated into unsustainable chaos and the legislation will have to be repealed.
We have heard that the cost of the poll tax is enormous. Nearly £1 million was spent on propaganda in Scotland trying to sell the poll tax to the Scottish people. Does the Secretary of State for the Environment believe that that money was well spent? Was it cost effective? After spending £1 million on propaganda, 80 per cent. of the Scottish people rejected the propaganda and the poll tax with it. Perhaps the local government auditors should have a close look at the Government Departments that are wasting money in that way. Already millions have been wasted on computers and in administrative costs. Other huge costs will be incurred in rejigging the scheme to bring it into line with the transitional arrangements.
The Minister wrote to me and told me that he believed that all the costs were worth paying because the system increased accountability in Scottish local government. It is

a sheer nerve for a Tory Minister responsible for Scotland to say that he wanted to see increased accountability in local government in Scotland. When are we going to have increased accountability in central Government in Scotland? Only 20 per cent. of the Scottish people voted for the Government who are now imposing their will on Scotland. We cannot hold the Government accountable and we are denied the right to hold them accountable, but we are told that accountability is good for us in local government in Scotland.
The Minister also justified the costs and disruption that the poll tax would bring about with the idea that it was a fairer method of collecting local government finance. If a poll tax of £350 is levied in a local authority, someone on £62·47 a week will be expected to pay the full poll tax. He will pay £6·73 in poll tax—10·8 per cent. of his income. Someone in the same area earning £300 a week will also pay £6·73 a week in poll tax, but that is 2·5 per cent. of his income. How can it be fairer for the poor to pay four times as much as the rich in their contributions to local government finance? The whole tax is immoral. It is only a matter of time, not until the poll tax is repealed, but until the Government are defeated. Then the poll tax will be repealed.

Mr. Tony Banks: I congratulate the Secretary of State on inserting a Treasury tag into the Government's bulky document. It makes it very convenient to hang it on a nail. I assure him that I will put every single page to good use.
An annex to the document relates to special grants which will be paid to inner London local authorities. I do not resent that—many local authorities are getting fresh grants. However, why is the London borough of Newham not qualified to receive special grants? I am sure that the Secretary of State understands that, although the London borough of Newham is an outer London borough, it has the same problems as inner London boroughs. If its two next-door boroughs of Tower Hamlets and Hackney are to receive special grants, I should like to know precisely why Newham is not to receive them and what they are all about.
It is grotesquely unfair that the poll tax payers of Newham will contribute to the safety net, whereas outer London Tory boroughs such as Bexley will get a safety net contribution. Why should the poll tax payers of Newham subsidise leafy Tory boroughs such as Bexley? I hope that the Secretary of State will tell me something that will make some sense to the people of Newham when they consider what was announced this afternoon.

Mr. Winnick: The Government have enough advisers.

Mr. Banks: I notice that the Box is now so crowded that they must double-park. It comes ill for the Government to start talking about special advisers and chairs' assistants in local authorities. They must carry a great weight of responsibility and they thoroughly deserve all the assistance they can possibly get.
The Secretary of State spoke about publicity for rebates and transitional relief. I saw the Minister, who is undoubtedly one of the most acceptable faces of extremism that we have seen on the Government Front Bench, nodding his head in grave agreement with my points. I want the Secretary of State himself to make a statement. I understand that the major poll tax advertising campaign will also involve television, and I trust that emphasis will be placed on rebates and transitional relief.
Opposition Members will support anything that points out how people can avoid the more iniquitous aspects of this invidious tax. If there are rebates and benefits, they must know what they are and how they can get them as speedily as possible. If that is what the advertising campaign is to be about, we will not object. We have seen enough of the Government's information campaigns to know that they usually amount to nothing more than crude Tory Government propaganda.
The Secretary of State did not respond to me earlier, so I ask him again. If he is genuine in saying that the advertising campaign will be about rebates and benefits that poll tax payers can receive, will he consult local authority associations on the terms of the advertising campaign to make sure that we are all in broad agreement before we start? If not, I suspect that there will be much disagreement and a lot of mud will be flung around.

Mr. Winnick: Does it not prove that the Prime Minister has a sense of humour, if only an odd one, that she appointed a Secretary of State who was known to be

opposed to the poll tax and who, as a Tory Back-Bench Member, made several wet speeches, and gave him the job of justifying this totally unfair tax?

Mr. Banks: I do not recognise the Prime Minister as having a sense of humour——

Mr. Winnick: A perverse one.

Mr. Banks: I was about to say that it must be a perverse one. Indeed, when the Prime Minister develops a sense of humour, I will cross the House to join Conservative Members, but I do not think that there is much danger of that happening in the foreseeable future—or, indeed, in the unforeseeable future.
I ask the Secretary of State yet again, since his Minister of State has made it plain that the campaign on the poll tax will be about rebates and transitional reliefs, whether he will give the undertaking that I have requested and seek early discussions with the local authority associations on the terms of the advertising campaign that is to be inflicted on us in the winter.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I intend to be brief. I begin by apologising to the Minister of State, Scottish Office and to his Opposition counterpart for not being present for their opening speeches. They, more than most, will appreciate the difficulties of trying to be in several places at one time and they know that I listen with great interest to their words on numerous occasions.
You will have noticed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that many of the hon. Members who have participated in the discussion on these amendments represent Scottish constituencies. If at times Opposition Members sound less than gracious when concessions are made by the Government, it is perhaps because, having consistently voted and worked against the community charge in Scotland, all of us are well aware of the implications of the implementation of that legislation in Scotland and of all its drawbacks.
I advise Conservative Members who represent English constituencies that if they think that their mailbags are heavy or that their constituency clinics are particularly busy, they have seen nothing yet. As the community charge comes closer in England and Wales, those Conservative Members will find out what we are finding out in Scotland, which is that the vast majority of people are opposed to this tax on grounds of principle. They will face many difficulties in trying to persuade their constituents that the legislation should go through. If all the Opposition Members representing Scottish seats were to bring into the Chamber and to read chapter and verse all the letters relating to the individual cases with which they have had to deal over the past 18 months, they could keep the House sitting for many a long hour, well beyond the normal rules and regulations. I give that as a clear warning because many individuals in other parts of the country will now experience the difficulties that we have experienced.
However, having said that, I welcome the flexibility that is now—belatedly—to be offered to the Scottish regional councils when deciding on the standard community charge. It is only right to mention that one of the strongest campaigners on this issue has been the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), whom we all wish well and hope that he will soon be recovered and back with us. Along with others of us in Grampian region, the right hon. Gentleman raised the point that people were being described as having "holiday homes" and were being subjected to a standard community charge of £522 for a little property, sometimes merely a wooden shack with no running water or electricity, for which in previous years they had paid perhaps £20, £30, or £40 in rates.
The fact that such people were being asked to pay the standard charge was against the interests of the tourist trade in our area, which is important in keeping small village shops open. That shop is often also the post office, where the pensioners collect their pensions, and it plays a significant role. We are talking not about people who live in mansions and have lots of money, but about individuals with a tiny cottage in which they can spend weekends or a fortnight in the summer, having a family holiday. This point has caused a great deal of upset. I therefore hope that the Secretary of State will tell us the implications of what

has happened in the financial year 1989‐90 for these people who have already been asked to pay such substantial charges for their small properties.
I wonder whether the Secretary of State wishes to comment also on what he has built into his calculations in respect of the bureaucracy of the charge. Regional councils in Scotland have suggested to me that, whereas the collection of rates constituted 2 per cent. of their income, a more accurate figure for the collection of the community charge is 8 or 9 per cent. That is a substantial increase. There are still warrants to be issued and people to be pursued who, like me, have had 14-day and seven-day warnings. There are still others who have not paid for whatever reason. We still do not know the financial implications of that. There must be some calculation of the bureaucratic implications of collecting the charge.
I welcome the concession about the sole or main residence for the purpose of employment. The Minister from the Scottish Office will remember the individual cases that I have sent him. Are there any implications for people who work abroad and use local services for only a few weeks of the year? A constituent who lives in Lossiemouth works in Dubai. Because of the nature of his work, he spends 12 weeks abroad and is then at home for three. In any financial year, therefore, he spends a minimum of nine weeks and a maximum of 10 weeks in the community, yet he is expected to pay the full charge.
I am disappointed that there is no reference here to what happens if people die. I do not want to repeat the problems experienced by fishermen's widows who were issued with community charge requests for £3 or £4 for the two or three days of a month when their husbands were alive. I thought that was appalling. Some regional authorities have decided that £5 is the minimum bill for which they will send out a claim, but I should like a clear ruling from the Government that no community charge payment will be required retrospectively for the month in which a community charge payer dies. Such requests demonstrated one of the most despicable attitudes in the implementation of the charge, and the heartbreak that it caused to widows and widowers in my constituency was horrendous.
I welcome the concession regarding Alzheimer's disease, but it has been a hard long struggle, and we are still not 100 per cent. sure what the implications are for others who suffer similar conditions, such as senile dementia, which the Secretary of State mentioned.
The Department of Social Security has announced that there is to be a substantial review of how payments and allowances are made to disabled people. The community charge must be considered clearly and sincerely in that review, because if we are to have emphasis on community care, the implications of the community charge are substantial for families who want to give independence to relatives with some form of disabling disease. The Department of the Environment and the Department of Social Security must take that on board.
We have experienced many other problems during the past year. If we in Scotland sometimes sound a little grudging about the concessions that are made, it is because we feel that we have been used as guinea pigs for this legislation. We have had the bureaucracy, the problems of constituents having eight pages to fill in to claim a rebate and local authorities saying that rebate forms have not reached them.
The few concessions that have been made do not in any way measure up to the anger, resentment and bitterness that many people feel about this charge in principle—not just because of the administrative chaos.
Those who seek to represent people must search their consciences. I believe that fundamental principles are at stake because of the community charge. I have searched my conscience and I know that I have not found it easy to become a non-payer. I do not find it particularly easy to break the civil laws of my country. Until those who seek to lead and to represent are prepared to take on leadership responsibilities, however, one cannot argue for changes in the law.
I believe that the non-payment campaign has helped to cause the small amendments to be made. I believe that non-payment can still help to defeat the poll tax. Its replacement with a local income tax would mean the introduction of a fairer tax which takes account of ability to pay. The community charge is destined to failure because it is based on a simple flaw.

Mr. Kirkwood: I do not wish to detain the House for long, but the group of amendments that we are considering are complicated and make changes in Scottish law which is entirely different from the English legal system. I accept that there can only be one wind-up speech, but obviously the English Minister will reply. That means that some of the legitimate points that have been raised by Members representing Scotland will not be answered.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall certainly write to all Members if all the relevant issues are not dealt with. Many of the points raised by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) were dealt with in my speech, but she was not present at the time.

Mr. Kirkwood: The Minister would be less than his usual courteous self if he did not write to hon. Members, but, with respect, that is not the point. If we are having debates, they should truly be debates.
Earlier today English Members heard a ministerial statement on local government finance, which meant that hon. Members representing English constituences had the opportunity to raise constituency issues. Instead of writing to Scots Members the Minister should consider the alternative of making a statement of his own at some date as that would enable us to ask specific questions. Will the orders that flow from the legislation that we are enacting be negative, or affirmative orders? If they are negative, hon. Members must pray against them. If they are affirmative, hon. Members are guaranteed a debate albeit limited to one and a half hours. We now have the broad framework of the legislation. but the orders are important as they provide the important detail.
The statements that the Secretary of State has made in the debate have been helpful and I believe that they represent a move in the right direction. We must see the fine print, however, before we can make final judgments. But it is important that the orders that introduce the legislative details are affirmative so that we can discuss them here as of right.
Today, on such issues as exemptions for Alzheimer's disease and discretion over the standard community charge, Ministers have adopted a different tone from previous discussions. They now say that things can be done that could not be done a year ago when the Scottish legislation went through. If such changes can be made

suddenly, why is it not possible to consider introducing a system of local government that relates people's local government taxation to their ability to pay. That is the fundamental flaw in the poll tax legislation.
The Secretary of State made great play about retaining local government accountability in the amendments. The best way to achieve such accountability is by adopting the political solution of a system of proportional representation. That makes the electorate the judge and jury on levels of tax rather than Ministers sitting in Whitehall.
I am concerned about levels of business rates. My constituency has a low-rated rural base and I cannot see how local small businesses or high street shops will be better off in the long run as a result of the uniform business rate, whether it is based on a unified Scottish or United Kingdom rate. I have never had a convincing answer to that. I have not had one tonight, and it is something to which the Government must address themselves. I understand that transitional protection is built in, and I welcome that. However, in the longer term, small businesses and shopkeepers in high streets in constituencies such as mine will inevitably suffer.
I welcome the fact that the transitional protection will be retrospective. I also understand that substantial moves are being made to encourage people to apply for community charge rebates. If, in the course of the advertising campaign, people in Scotland are found to be eligible for rebate on their poll tax, will the rebate be paid in retrospect as well? Will the rebate system as well as the transitional protection be retrospective in Scotland? That is an important question, and one to which I hope the Minister will address himself.
11 pm
I wish to ask about what will happen when local authorities take advantage of the new discretion to zero rate people's individual standard community charge. When people's contracts of employment require them to live outside their home, and a local authority allows their income to be zero rated, will central Government make good the losses to the local authority's revenue support grant? That is an important point.
Will the Government look carefully at a problem which has arisen in my constituency where, because of a computer programme failure, 18-year-olds have been missed off the register and have only just started receiving their original bills in the past few weeks? My local authority, which has the legal power summarily to insist that the full amount be paid forthwith, has given them to the end of the financial year to pay these arrears. That doubles the weekly and monthly charge which they are required to pay. Will the Government look at the possibility of extending the period available to extinguish arrears in such cases, where the fault for the arrears did not lie with the community charge payer, but was due to a local authority administrative hiccup? Such people deserve more time in which to pay the amount owed.
The concession which has been made on senile dementia is welcome, but the Secretary of State will not be able to allow the exemption to rest there. The category of exemption will have to be expanded to cope adequately with the present position in Scotland. Apart from anything else, the legislation drives a coach and horses through the Government's policy of trying to promote care in the community if individuals can be charged outside institutions within which they are exempt.
The Government have a long way to go. The changes announced tonight are warmly welcomed. as far as they go, but they do not go nearly far enough.

Mr. Wallace: I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and wish to mention the unsatisfactory nature of trying to mix a Scottish debate with an English and Welsh debate. As the Secretary of State explained on a point of order, it was agreed between the usual channels, and no doubt Opposition Front Bench spokesmen work in a mysterious way to put the Scottish Office on the hop by allowing it to get away with a reply from the Secretary of State for the Environment, who is not responsible for the Scottish operation of the poll tax, despite his great talents in many other respects.
I also wish to congratulate the Government on bringing forward an amendment dealing with the standard community charge which is, in many respects, similar to that which I moved on Report. I well recall the occasion, not least because of the absence and silence of the other two Opposition parties in Scotland. The Government have done a complete U-turn from the position which they then held.
I also wish to congratulate and thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) for implementing an undertaking which he gave on that occasion in relation to another new clause which I tabled about evidence on appeals arising out of the poll tax. That is dealt with in Lords amendment No. 419, and I acknowledge that it will improve matters.
Although the rebate scheme has been presented as a generous measure—and it is far better than nothing—it will still leave many people considerably worse off. In my constituency, because the poll tax does not amount to £150 per annum, or £3 per week, per person, no one will derive any benefit. It is clear from letters from my constituents that many of them find themselves worse off under the poll tax, but this rebate scheme will not bring them any benefits.
It is important to put it on record that, although the amendments will bring some relief to some people, it by no means makes the poll tax a good tax; it makes it only a little less rotten.

Mr. Chris Patten: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to reply, albeit briefly, to a number of the points that have been raised. I shall not detain the House for an inordinate length of time.
I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) for his warm and charming welcome to my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who has joined my Department. I thought that at one point the hon. Gentleman was about to suggest that there was nothing in life that anyone could want more than a berth in Marsham street. My hon. Friend is a welcome member of the team.
The hon. Gentleman and I must have felt at times as though we were intervening in a Scottish debate, but it was helpful to have such a wealth of experience brought to bear on a number of the Government's proposals for smoothing the introduction of the community charge.
I want to take up three points that the hon. Gentleman raised. First, he referred to community care, and especially to those leaving care homes and going into the community after 31 March next year. Those in the position he

described will have all the protection already built into the community charge system. If they have low incomes they will be entitled to rebates. It is important to recognise that the transitional relief is in addition to the existing protection, so it is misleading to suggest that those who do not qualify for relief are being deprived of protection.
The hon. Gentleman made a number of points about senile dementia. The Scottish amendments deal with that and apply new definitions retrospectively. We have also announced that we shall change the provisions that exempt from the community charge those who are severely mentally impaired. As was made clear, that will allow the exemption to cover people whose mental impairment arises from degenerative conditions such as Alzheimer's disease or mental illness. The change in the definition in England will be made by order and no new primary legislation will be necessary. It will be done by adding attendance allowance and constant attendance allowance to the list of qualifying benefits and removing the requirement that the impairment must have arisen from a congenital or childhood condition or injury to the brain. Any person who is in receipt of a qualifying allowance and has a certificate from his doctor confirming that his intelligence and social functioning are severely impaired will be entitled to the exemption.
As there has been some misunderstanding on that point, I must make it clear that we will not be specifying by name the conditions that will qualify people for exemption. I think that that was the point which most concerned the hon. Gentleman. That aspect is important, given recent press reports on the difficulties of diagnosing Alzheimer's disease. Anyone suffering from any disorder that is severe enough to warrant the award of the attendance allowance or any of the existing qualifying benefits will be exempted if his doctor certifies that his impairment is a mental one.
The hon. Member for Brightside pressed his amendment and suggested that rather than spending the money that we have made available for the interim relief scheme we should be spending it on rebates, thereby making the existing system of rebates more generous. The hon. Gentleman will know that next year in Britain as a whole about £2 billion will be paid out in rebates, plus another £500 million in income support to help pay community charge bills.
There are two principal problems with the Opposition's amendment. First, it would be wrong to provide yet more permanent help through rebates. That would undermine the accountability which is so central to the working of the new system. Secondly, I doubt whether the Opposition would wish that those on average earnings should lose more than £3 a week next year and receive no help. No conceivable increase in rebates would help that group. It is right, therefore, to target help directly at those who stand to lose the most, and to provide such help on a transitional basis only. Most of the help is likely to go to those on relatively modest incomes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) made a powerful speech in supporting small businesses and the transitional problems that some of them will face. I know that he is extremely knowledgeable on the subject and has been a good friend to small businesses. He referred to the transitional arrangements for phasing in the uniform business rate, revaluation and the impact on small businesses. We have taken the view that protection against increases in bills should apply to


existing occupiers only. New occupiers of both new and existing property should not, in our view, qualify for protection in the same way, because when taking on a new property they will know what their new rate liability will be. I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but it must be remembered that the protection for losers under the new system is to he paid for by the gainers, who will have to wait for their full gains. The amendment would postpone further the point at which businesses that are expecting reductions, predominantly in the north and the midlands —this was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson)—will be able to enjoy them.
We must strike a balance between the need to protect losers and the need to complete the transitional process as quickly as possible to secure the benefits of the new system. We think that we have struck the right balance, but I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby had to say. I would be pleased to talk to him further to ascertain whether there is anything else that we can do to meet the problem to which he pointed.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) referred to the usefulness of some of the documentation that we have provided for the House today. I should tell him that the type does come off some of the documents. The hon. Gentleman asked why Newham does not qualify for the ILEA special grant. The reason is that Newham is not in ILEA.

Mr. Tony Banks: The special grant is available to other local authorities outside London that have nothing to do with ILEA. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain that?

Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman drew special attention to the ILEA grant. I think that he is referring beyond that to support for additional education needs. If the hon. Gentleman and I are unable to agree tonight, I shall write to him. The grant that is dealt with on the specific page to which he referred is the ILEA one.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West talked about advertising and the campaign that he read about in the newspapers. I want to confirm what was said earlier in the debate, what we intimated by winks and nods and what we intimated orally. We intend through advertising to try to encourage the maximum take-up of rebates and the maximum take-up of interim relief. That is the purpose of the advertising.

Mr. Blunkett: I should like to press the Secretary of State on that point, because it is important to the House. Do the Government intend to use television advertising? If so, do they intend to refer to their transitional scheme, or to rebates that the right hon. Gentleman has just mentioned'?

Orders of the Day — Schedule 5

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE ACT I988: AMENDMENTS

Lords amendment: No. 330, in page 162, line 6, at end insert—

"2C. The following section shall be inserted after section 13—

"Reduced liability

13A.—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations as regards any case where—
(a) a person is liable to pay an amount to an authority in respect of a personal community charge as it has effect for any chargeable financial year which is prescribed, and
(b) prescribed conditions are fulfilled.

(2) The regulations may provide that the amount he is liable to pay shall be an amount which—
(a) is less than the amount it would be apart from the regulations, and
(b) is found in accordance with prescribed rules.

(3) This section applies whether the liability to pay the amount mentioned in subsection (1) above arises under

Mr. Patten: We certainly intend to use television for part of the advertising. We have not decided precisely how to allocate advertising for the interim relief scheme or the rebates, but I think that we must ensure that we advertise both schemes as effectively and comprehensively as possible. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are well aware of the parameters for advertising, about which he and some of his hon. Friends have shown such priestly concern.

Mr. Maxton: Should not the Government give more money to the local authorities—which are much better able to identify those who need rebates—rather than leaving the task to centrally funded television and national newspaper advertising schemes, which, as the Scottish experience has shown, do not really work?

Mr. Patten: I think that national advertising is probably the best way to deal with what are, after all, national issues. I do not, however, rule out the possibility —although not necessarily in this instance—of occasionally using local authorities to get such important messages across, and also using voluntary organisations.
If I have been unable to deal with any points during my brief remarks, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland or I will try to deal with them in correspondence.
This has been a useful debate. It has given us a chance to cover a number of the important changes that we are making to the community charge. By and large, both sides of the House have been able to agree—with one or two honourable exceptions—that the domestic rating system is inequitable and should go. We have put forward our proposals for its replacement. We are still not entirely clear about the Opposition's proposals: they seem as mysterious as Zsa Zsa Gabor's age. When we find out what they are, however, we shall want to provide exemplication so that the public know precisely what the consequences would be. In the meantime, until the Opposition produce their next policy, we will get on with the job of governing the country.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos 256 to 264 and 328 and 329 agreed to.[Some with Special Entry.]

section 12 above or arises under that section read with section 13 above.

(4) The conditions mentioned in subsection (1) above may be prescribed by reference to such factors as the Secretary of State sees fit; and in particular such factors may include all or any of the following—
(a) rates for a period before 1 April 1990;
(b) the circumstances of, or other matters relating to, the person concerned;
(c) an amount relating to the authority concerned and specified, or to be specified, for the purposes of the regulations in a report laid, or to be laid, before the House of Commons;
(d) such other amounts as may be prescribed or arrived at in a prescribed manner;
(e) the making of an application by the person concerned.

(5) The rules mentioned in subsection (2) above may be prescribed by reference to such factors as the Secretary of State sees fit; and in particular such factors may include all or any of the factors mentioned in subsection (4)(a) to (d) above.

(6) Without prejudice to the generality of section 143(2) below, regulations under this section may include—
(a) provision requiring the Secretary of State to specify in a report, for the purposes of the regulations, an amount in relation to each charging authority;
(b) provision requiring him to lay the report before the House of Commons;
(c) provision for the review of any prescribed decision of a charging authority relating to the application or operation of the regulations;
(d) provision that no appeal may be made to a valuation and community charge tribunal in respect of such a decision, notwithstanding section 23(2) below.

(7) To the extent that he would not have power to do so apart from this subsection, the Secretary of State may—

(a) include in regulations under this section such amendments of any social security instrument as he thinks expedient in consequence of the regulations under this section;
(b) include in any social security instrument such provision as he thinks expedient in consequence of regulations under this section.

(8) In subsection (7) above "social security instrument" means an order or regulations made, or falling to be made, by the Secretary of State under the Social Security Act 1986."

2D. In section 16 (joint and several liability: spouses) in subsection (l)(b) for "(read with section 13 above, where it is appropriate)" there shall be substituted "(or that section read with section 13 or 13A above, or both)".

Read a Second time.

Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment: (f), in line 66, at end insert—

13B—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations which—
(a) quantify the aggregate amount of reduced liabilities calculated under a proposed scheme of reduced liability on an individual basis under Section 13A above.
(b) amend any regulations made under Section 135 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 to distribute the amount calculated under (a) above by way of increased community charge benefit.

(2) Before deciding whether to make regulations under this section or under Section 13A above the Secretary of State shall consult such bodies representing local government, families with children and old age pensioners as appear to him to be concerned,'.—[Mr. Blunkett]

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 202, Noes 278.

Division No. 369]
[11.18 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Boyes, Roland


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Bradley, Keith


Allen, Graham
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Alton, David
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Armstrong, Hilary
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Ashton, Joe
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Buchan, Norman


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Buckley, George J.


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Caborn, Richard


Battle, John
Callaghan, Jim


Beckett, Margaret
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Beith, A. J.
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Bennett, A. F.(D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Canavan, Dennis


Bermingham, Gerald
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Bidwell, Sydney
Cartwright, John


Blair, Tony
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Blunkett, David
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Boateng, Paul
Clay, Bob






Clelland, David
Livingstone, Ken


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cohen, Harry
Loyden, Eddie


Coleman, Donald
McAllion, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
McAvoy, Thomas


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
McCartney, Ian


Corbett, Robin
Macdonald, Calum A.


Corbyn, Jeremy
McFall, John


Cousins, Jim
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Crowther, Stan
McLeish, Henry


Cryer, Bob
McNamara, Kevin


Cummings, John
McWilliam, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Madden, Max


Cunningham, Dr John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Dalyell, Tam
Marek, Dr John


Darling, Alistair
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Martin, Michael J.(Springburn)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Martlew, Eric


Dixon, Don
Maxton, John


Dobson, Frank
Meacher, Michael


Doran, Frank
Meale, Alan


Douglas, Dick
Michael, Alun


Duffy, A. E. P.
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Morgan, Rhodri


Eadie, Alexander
Morley, Elliot


Eastham, Ken
Morris, Rt Hon J.(Aberavon)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Mullin, Chris


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Murphy, Paul


Fatchett, Derek
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Faulds, Andrew
O'Brien, William


Fearn, Ronald
O'Neill, Martin


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Parry, Robert


Fisher, Mark
Patchett, Terry


Flannery, Martin
Pendry, Tom


Flynn, Paul
Pike, Peter L.


Foster, Derek
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Fraser, John
Quin, Ms Joyce


Fyfe, Maria
Radice, Giles


Galloway, George
Randall, Stuart


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Redmond, Martin


George, Bruce
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Reid, Dr John


Gordon, Mildred
Richardson, Jo


Gould, Bryan
Robertson, George


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Rooker, Jeff


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Grocott, Bruce
Rowlands, Ted


Hardy, Peter
Ruddock, Joan


Harman, Ms Harriet
Sheerman, Barry


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Heffer, Eric S.
Short, Clare


Henderson, Doug
Skinner, Dennis


Hinchliffe, David
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Smith, J. P.(Vale of Glam)


Hogg, N.(C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Snape, Peter


Home Robertson, John
Soley, Clive


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Spearing, Nigel


Howells, Geraint
Steinberg, Gerry


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Stott, Roger


Hoyle, Doug
Straw, Jack


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Illsley, Eric
Turner, Dennis


Ingram, Adam
Vaz, Keith


Janner, Greville
Wall, Pat


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Wallace, James


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Warded, Gareth (Gower)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Wareing, Robert N.


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Kirkwood, Archy
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Lambie, David
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Lamond, James
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Leadbitter, Ted
Williams, Alan W.(Carm'then)


Leighton, Ron
Wilson, Brian


Lewis, Terry
Winnick, David


Litherland, Robert
Wise, Mrs Audrey





Worthington, Tony
Tellers for the Ayes:


Young, David (Bolton SE)
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mrs. Llin Golding.




NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Alexander, Richard
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Fishburn, John Dudley


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Fookes, Dame Janet


Amess, David
Forman, Nigel


Amos, Alan
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Arbuthnot, James
Fox, Sir Marcus


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Franks, Cecil


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Freeman, Roger


Ashby, David
French, Douglas


Aspinwall, Jack
Gale, Roger


Atkins, Robert
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Baker, Rt Hon K.(Mole Valley)
Gill, Christopher


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Baldry, Tony
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Batiste, Spencer
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bellingham, Henry
Gorst, John


Bendall, Vivian
Gow, Ian


Bevan, David Gilroy
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gregory, Conal


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Boswell, Tim
Grist, Ian


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Ground, Patrick


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Grylls, Michael


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bowis, John
Hague, William


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brazier, Julian
Hampson, Dr Keith


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hanley, Jeremy


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hannam, John


Buck, Sir Antony
Hargreaves, A.(B'ham H'll Gr')


Budgen, Nicholas
Harris, David


Burns, Simon
Haselhurst, Alan


Burt, Alistair
Hawkins, Christopher


Butcher, John
Hayes, Jerry


Butler, Chris
Hayward, Robert


Butterfill, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Heddle, John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Carrington, Matthew
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Carttiss, Michael
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Cash, William
Hill, James


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hind, Kenneth


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Chapman, Sydney
Holt, Richard


Chope, Christopher
Hordern, Sir Peter


Churchill, Mr
Howard, Michael


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howarth, G.(Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Clark, Sir W.(Croydon S)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Clarke, Rt Hon K.(Rushcliffe)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Conway, Derek
Hughes, Robert G.(Harrow W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunter, Andrew


Couchman, James
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Cran, James
Irvine, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Irving, Charles


Day, Stephen
Jack, Michael


Devlin, Tim
Janman, Tim


Dicks, Terry
Jessel, Toby


Dorrell, Stephen
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dover, Den
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Dunn, Bob
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Eggar, Tim
Key, Robert


Emery, Sir Peter
Kilfedder, James


Evennett, David
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Fallon, Michael
Kirkhope, Timothy


Favell, Tony
Knapman, Roger






Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Nicholls, Patrick


Knox, David
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Lawrence, Ivan
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Lee, John (Pendle)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Paice, James


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Patnick, Irvine


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Lightbown, David
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Lilley, Peter
Pawsey, James


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Lord, Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Portillo, Michael


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Powell, William (Corby)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Price, Sir David


Maclean, David
Rathbone, Tim


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Redwood, John


Malins, Humfrey
Renton, Tim


Mans, Keith
Riddick, Graham


Marland, Paul
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Marlow, Tony
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Rost, Peter


Miller, Sir Hal
Rowe, Andrew


Mills, lain
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Ryder, Richard


Moate, Roger
Sackville, Hon Tom


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Sayeed, Jonathan


Moss, Malcolm
Shaw, David (Dover)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Mudd, David
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Neale, Gerrard
Shelton, Sir William


Nelson, Anthony
Shephard, Mrs G.(Norfolk SW)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)




Shersby, Michael
Townsend, Cyril D.(B'heath)


Sims, Roger
Tracey, Richard


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Tredinnick, David


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Trotter, Neville


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Speller, Tony
Viggers, Peter


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Walden, George


Squire, Robin
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Stanbrook, Ivor
Waller, Gary


Steen, Anthony
Ward, John


Stern, Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stevens, Lewis
Warren, Kenneth


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Watts, John


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wheeler, John


Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
Whitney, Ray


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Widdecombe, Ann


Summerson, Hugo
Wiggin, Jerry


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wilkinson, John


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Winterton, Nicholas


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wolfson, Mark


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Yeo, Tim


Thompson, D.(Calder Valley)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Thorne, Neil



Thornton, Malcolm
Tellers for the Noes:


Thumham, Peter
Mr. Alastair Goodlad and


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Mr. Tony Durant.

"Schedule 11 (tribunals) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 2 (jurisdiction) the following paragraph shall be inserted at the end—
"(c) paragraph 5 of Schedule 4A above,"
(3) In"

Read a Second time.

Amendment made to the Lords amendment: (a), in line 5, leave out '5' and insert—[Mr. Chris Patten.]

Lords amendment No. 400, as amended, agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 401 to 424 agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 34

GUIDANCE AND CONSULTATION ABOUT PROMOTION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Lords amendment: No. 13, in page 40, line 46, after "available" insert—
"(i) to such bodies as are representative of commercial or industrial undertakings in their area;
(ii)"

Mr. David Hunt: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 14 to 19, 309 and 310.

Mr. Hunt: These amendments bring us to part III of the Bill, which is concerned primarily with providing a new economic development power for local authorities and tidying up the scope of their existing discretionary spending power under section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972.

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendments Nos. 330 to 399 agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]

Lords amendment: No.400, in page 173, line 35, leave out "In Schedule 11, in" and insert—

Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 relate to the consultation required for local authorities which wish to undertake economic development under the new power. The Association of British Chambers of Commerce argued that where there was a chamber of Commerce, it should be consulted. The amendment will ensure that it is the local authority's duty to do so. It will, of course, remain a matter for the local authority's discretion what other persons or organisations should also be consulted.

Amendments Nos. 15 to 17 provide a power by which the Secretary of State will be able to set out in regulations how the relevant population for section 137 is to be calculated.

Amendment No. 18 will raise from £500 to £2,000 the level of grant provided under section 137 below which a local authority is not required to insist on a report from a voluntary organisation on how the grant was used. Spokesmen for voluntary organisations argued that that would be an appropriate figure, and we are happy to accept that advice.

Amendment No. 19 introduces a new power for local authorities to fund advice agencies. We are glad to accept the suggestion of Baroness Strange, speaking in another place for a number of advice organisations, for an amendment to provide a new general power for local authorities to assist advice agencies. This is done by extending the provisions of section 142 of the Local Government Act 1972, which currently only provides for a power for local authorities to make or assist in the


making of arrangements for the provision of information. The fact that local citizens advice bureaux are no longer just providing information but are giving good advice to local people demonstrates how far they have gone with their expertise and experience.

Mr. Paul Murphy: The Opposition generally welcome the amendments on economic development, especially in so far as they affect voluntary organisations and advice services. We are worried because all these changes can come into effect only if the Secretary of State does not use all the powers that are enshrined in the Bill. Clause 33 in particular gives the Secretary of State extremely wide powers under which he can cap economic development expenditure. The clause effectively says that areas with unemployment above the national average will be unable to use economic development power for financial assistance purposes. We believe that this obscures local pockets of unemployment.
We hope that the Government will announce that the regulations will be used flexibly in future years and will be subject to the widest possible consultations with local authorities and the private sector. This is especially the case on amendments Nos. 13 and 14 where local commercial interests are to be consulted. I should be grateful for the Minister's comments.

Mr. David Mudd: Although the Bill has gone a long way towards improving answerability to ratepayers about discretionary spending, it still does not seem to cover a worrying anomaly. The Government, in their response to the Widdicombe report, reaffirmed their faith in the local ombudsman system of answerability and referred in paragraph 6.20 to
exploiting the strengths of the current arrangements rather than making fundamental changes which may weaken the system as a whole.
However, one of the weaknesses of the present system is that it can sometimes, by denying ratepayers a chance to argue their complaints, equally deny a local authority the opportunity to clear itself against allegations. In December 1984 and January 1985, Carrick district council passed a minute—No. 1218℄which agreed:
as a matter of principle the Council support an officer's legal costs in any libellous or slandrous actions taken; and that the chief excecutive. in consultation with the chairman and vice-chairman of the council, he authorised to approve such actions where the actions arose from the pursuance of an officer of his official duties".
Between this controversial minute being passed by the committee in December 1984 and the whole council in January 1985, the words
the council support an officer's legal costs
were strengthened to
the council finance an officer's legal costs".
In effect, a council official could merrily proceed with litigation in the knowledge that the ratepayers would have to foot the bill. This possibility led to the unusually high number of cases which were subsequently initiated and which, the then district auditor noted, clearly gave "cause for concern".
Despite repeated submissions from the ratepayers about the legality of minute 1218, the council maintained its faith in it for four and a half years. I do not know how many times it was triggered, although I am advised that when one Cornish newspaper published a reader's letter which was mildly critical of Carrick district council, both

the newspaper and the letter writer received letters from the council's legal department suggesting that correspondence should now cease.
In July 1987, a group of ratepayers approached me to complain about certain alleged financial and other irregularities involving the council. I was then asked to request my right hon. Friends the then Home Secretary and the then Secretary of State for the Environment to investigate, as the complainants feared that proceedings would be initiated against them under minute 1218 if they persevered with their complaints by using usual channels.
I established that Devon and Cornwall constabulary was already investigating these matters and that since the creation of the local ombudsman service in 1974 the Secretary of State for the Environment seemingly no longer had powers of independent investigation.
In 1987, the complainants, believing that they could present prima facie evidence of malpractice, found themselves in an impotent, nightmarish and frustrating Catch 22 of monumental proportions. There was no way in which they could go public through Ministers or the media due to the existence of minute 1218. As manifestations of alleged maladministration affected all, as opposed to a few, of Carrick's ratepayers, the local ombudsman could not act. As the allegations of financial malpractice were being investigated and processed by the police, they in turn had become sub judice.
At Truro Crown court in April 1989, the Crown Prosecution Service offered no evidence when a district council official appeared charged with financial offences. It was not until July 1989—four and a half years after accepting minute 1218—that Carrick district council sought and accepted the opinion of leading counsel that the minute was ultra vires and should not be invoked further.
It was estimated that this exercise had cost the ratepayers £2,437. However, it is suspected that that item of discretionary spending may refer only to specific legal advice to officers as opposed to the internal administration charges of the council at various stages of pre-litigation.
As it was clearly a matter of discretionary spending, the complainants tried to persuade the Audit Commission to re-examine Carrick's books for the disputed years. But the commission then declined to reopen accounts after an audit had been completed.
The so-called strengths of the current system for investigation and remedy, so warmly supported in the Government's response to Widdicombe, are of dubious value when we consider this experience of ratepayers challenging discretionary expenditure. An ultra vires minute kept a council's officers and a critical public on an unequal basis for four and a half years. Members of the public were thus prevented from defending themselves against attack from the council chamber by or on behalf of council officers.
The existence of the minute inhibited certain persons from making statements to the police. The district auditor was unwilling to investigate because of the passage of time since the completion of the most recent financial year. The local ombudsman would not investigate because all, rather than individual, ratepayers were potential sufferers from this action. When matters had dragged on for several years, the Audit Commission found itself unable or unwilling to reinvestigate.
I am aware that an ability to challenge such discretionary expenditure exists under section 22(2) of the


Local Government Finance Act 1982, under which the Secretary of State may require an extraordinary audit. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will, on this occasion, exceptionally agree to receive and consider a submission from the complainants. In the meantime, under the existing tried, trusted and strong local government ombudsman system, vilification—rather than vindication —will continue to sour the air of Carrick. The complainants will go unheard and, above all, the council will be denied the clearance from the outstanding accusations that it believes it deserves.

Mr. David Hunt: I have always been immensely impressed by the diligence and vigour with which my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) has represented his constituents' views. I have listened carefully to what he has said, and I am aware that he has raised a number of serious issues. As he has already said, the question whether expenditure is lawfully incurred is a matter for the Audit Commission, and it is not for me to intervene in the commission's decisions. The case that my hon. Friend has cited shows that electors who are concerned about any item of local authority expenditure should act promptly.
I ought to preface my remarks by saying that I am certain that most local authorities are scrupulous about the propriety and legality of their expenditure. Where illegality is suspected, there is a perfectly adequate regulatory system. Electors can draw to the local authority auditor's attention any item of expenditure which, in their opinion, has been incurred unlawfully by their council. The auditor can choose to look at any such item brought to his attention and can rule it to be unlawful expenditure under part II of the Local Government Finance Act 1982. If the expenditure is unlawful, the auditor can seek a declaration from the court to that effect and the court may surcharge the expenditure on those who authorised it.
My hon. Friend has raised matters that go back some considerable time. I therefore propose to ask the Audit Commission to let me have a report on the case and if my hon. Friend will agree to it I shall come back to him when I have made further inquiries.
The hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) asked about the capping reserve power. Clause 33 permits the capping of economic development, but we have made it clear that the power to cap such expenditure is very much a reserve power. We have made it absolutely clear that at present there are no cases in which we would regard it as reasonable to use the power. On the question of flexibility, I remind the House that we have issued a consultation paper. We have received many comments and we are now studying them. We have every intention of using the powers conferred in the Bill flexibly within the overall aim of ensuring that resources are concentrated on the areas that most need assistance. I hope that that reassures Opposition Members.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 14 to 19 agreed to, one with Special Entry.

Lords amendments Nos. 309 and 310 agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 64

APPLICATION OF, AND ORDERS UNDER, PART V

Lords amendment: No. 81, in page 70, leave out lines 43 to 45.

Mr. David Hunt: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 82 to 111.

Mr. Hunt: These amendments were agreed with the Opposition in another place to improve part V of the Bill which deals with the interests of local authorities in companies. It is our intention to introduce an order setting out the rules for those local authority companies. We have invited responses to the consultation by early December and it is our intention to draft the regulation as soon as possible thereafter.

Mr. O'Brien: As the Minister explained, part V of the Bill deals with companies in which local authorities have an interest. In Committee and in the other place questions were put to Ministers about issues that are not on the face of the Bill. Part V has consequences for the operations of local authorities which are encouraged by the Government to enter into company organisations for economic development, trusts, charitable trusts, housing associations and for recreation and leisure. Many companies are formed through the co-operation of local authorities and private organisations. Part V raises questions which must be answered.
We are worried about the influence of the Secretary of State on part V through regulations. In this House and in the other place the Government did not bring forward any substantial evidence of abuse by local authorities and the companies with which they are involved.
According to part V, companies that fall within the control or influence of a local authority will count against a local authority's capital allocations and thereby raise substantial obstacles to working with the private sector to promote economic regeneration and to conserve local employment. We would like to see part V withdrawn.
We have noted that the Minister referred to the fact that some agreement has been reached, so I hope that he will be able to respond to some points that I want to make now. In Committee I referred to a company that might be formed in west Yorkshire in relation to the mining museum established by the local authorities in Wakefield, Kirklees and the former South Yorkshire county council and the West Yorkshire county council. We asked how the Bill would affect the company that has been formed to run that mining museum, and the Minister replied:
Our officials at the Department of the Environment are ready, willing and waiting to give advice on the structure of the trust. At present I do not know what it is. That is nobody's fault. Perhaps the hon. Member for Normanton will ask the secretary of the trust to outline it in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, or to me, and we shall do whatever we can to help. We are also prepared to meet representatives of the trust."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 11 April 1989; c. 767.]
The representations were made and we were advised that the trust should move from being an involved company to an arms-length company—or one that would not include local authorities to the extent that it had previously.
In the House of Lords, Lord Hesketh was asked about the difference between a controlled company and an


influenced company. Officers of the Department advised the trust to which I referred to move from being a controlled company to being an influenced company. What are the benefits of that change?
In the House of Lords, the Minister was asked:
Can the Minister give more information about the difference between a controlled company and an influenced company? The exact difference is not made clear in the Bill. I particularly have in mind the Yorkshire mining museum which at present is a controlled company but has already been advised by the Minister in another place that it might be advisable to consider restructuring. But would restructuring mean for such a company that the restrictions and controls imposed upon it would relate only to the borrowing controls? Would all other financial controls be removed from such an influenced company?
Would an influenced company still be eligible for a share of local authority provisions through the European Community? Would such a company be able to continue to take advantage of the services of a local authority such as specialised legal, financial, administrative and personnel services?" —[Official Report. House of Lords, 24 July 1989; Vol. 501, c. 1256.]
Those questions have been asked in this House and in the other place. Lord Hesketh promised that they would be answered in a consultative document which was issued last month. However, only one question was answered. Will the Minister now explain the real consequences of the change from a controlled company to an influenced company? It can affect many companies that are formed and influenced by local authorities. The answers to those questions will help local authorities to decide how to form their interest in certain companies.
I should like to probe many other issues, but, in view of the lateness of the hour, if the Minister is prepared to answer my questions we will at least obtain some satisfaction.

Mr. A.. J. Beith: I should like the Minister to consider the question of building preservation trusts—an issue which was fully and effectively raised by Lord Montagu of Beaulieu in another place. Building preservation trusts represent valuable self-help in the preservation of our architectural heritage. In my constituency, the Berwick preservation trust is one of the pioneering bodies in this matter. Most are known as revolving trusts, which carry out a project, sell the resultant improved building, and use the capital on another project, thereby ensuring that many historic buildings in historic towns are saved and that capital continues to be used for further restoration work. That is a million miles from the Government's various anxieties to which the Bill is directed. Leaving aside for a moment whether those anxieties are justified—I seriously doubt it —how will the Minister ensure that building preservation trusts' work is not impaired by provisions which were conceived without reference to their problems and which bore no relation to the world in which they operate?
My greatest fear is about borrowing powers. Companies caught by the definition in part V of the Bill will be subject to the regulations in part IV affecting local authority borrowing. Many building preservation trusts have a close association with their local authorities, to which they look for practical help and often like to have a good representation of local authority people on them.
The end result of the provisions could be that borrowing by a controlled or influenced preservation trust from any third party, including the architectural heritage fund, would count against the relevant control total for the

local authority. Therefore, the local authority will have to approve the building preservation trust's borrowing in advance and to have a degree of influence over it that the, authority would never have sought in the first place. If the provisions are still in that form, and if the Minister cannot give me some fresh assurances, he will end up with local authorities exercising more influence rather than less and doing so in a way that they would not have sought. In addition, the work of preservation trusts in attracting new funds and capital into the projects will he impaired.
12 midnight
I know that the Minister in another place, Lord Hesketh, gave assurances that the matter should be discussed. Indeed, a meeting was held in August between the Department of the Environment, English Heritage and the various other bodies involved but, as far as I am aware., we are not a lot further forward except that we know that the Minister may make some kind of exemption under the powers that have already been referred to. However, it would have been much more satisfactory to have a class exemption, exempting the whole category of building preservation trusts. Anything less than that, which still leaves the borrowing powers under some threat of involvement with local authority borrowing in general, is not satisfactory. I am sure that the Minister does not want to harm the work of building preservation trusts, and I wish that he would make it absolutely clear that he will disentangle them from the Bill.

Mr. David Hunt: I reassure the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that I recognise the important work done by building preservation trusts. We have said that we shall exempt building preservation trusts that are registered with the architectural heritage fund from being influenced companies. I understand that the exemption has been accepted by English Heritage and the architectural heritage fund as removing any such problems for such companies. If the hon. Gentleman would like to raise any other points with me, perhaps he will get in touch with me after the debate.
I can advise the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) that I have the consultation paper with me. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman missed annex D, which sets out clearly the differences between influenced companies and controlled companies. There are eight points on influenced companies and five points on controlled companies operating at arms length, with a further four points on other controlled companies. If the hon. Gentleman will look at annex D, he will find that the provisions are set out simply. If he has any further queries, perhaps he will let me know. That would be better than my reading out the whole annex and putting it on the record.
I understand that my Department's officials had a meeting with the trust about the West Yorkshire mining museum. We understand that the trust is content with the position as explained to it. The Department did not, of course, advise on any particular action because it is for the company to make up its own mind, but the consultation paper that we issued clearly sets out the trust's position. A copy has been sent to the West Yorkshire trust.
I readily accept that these are technical matters. As the hour is late, I shall simply advise the hon. Member for Normanton that, if he would like to raise any further points, I should be glad to hear from him and perhaps we can deal with them at a later stage.

Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to the Minister for taking the trouble to introduce the consultation document. I appreciate its reference to interpretation. However, two points are not made clear in the document. One is the question of the availability of EEC funds for charitable trusts, and in particular for the West Yorkshire mining museum. Secondly, would such bodies still be able to use the expert knowledge of local authority officials, such as their legal, personnel and financing people, without breaching any of the provisions of the Bill?
As the consultation document does not make those two points clear, I should be grateful if the Minister or his officials would take the time to consider them and to let me have their observations.

Mr. Hunt: I believe that it is clearly set out, but I shall write in more detail to the hon. Gentleman.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 82 to 111 agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 37

APPLICATION OF PART IV

Lords amendment: No. 20, in page 44, line 32, at end insert—
(bb) a trust to which, by virtue of an order under section 69 below, the provisions of section 66 below are applicable; or

Mr. Hunt: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 21 to 45, 46 and amendment (a) thereto, 47 to 80 and 311 to 317.

Mr. Hunt: These are technical amendments. Part IV replaces a ramshackle collection of legislative provisions spread across 31 Acts of Parliament dating back to 1875.

Mr. Tony Banks: Aha! The last Labour Government.

Mr. Hunt: Part IV replaces the present capital control system which, in recent years, has served the interests of neither central nor local government.
The regulation-making powers concerning the reserved part of capital receipts have been widened. We intend to use them to give exemptions, by regulations, in the new system for what are known as in-and-out schemes in the present system. We are consulting on our proposals. We have also announced proposed exemptions that will help local authorities to dispose of land for subsidised rented housing.
We have taken a regulation-making power to allow local authorities that have set aside more than sufficient sums to repay all their debt to use the surplus for specified purposes. We intend to allow debt-free authorities generally to spend all their future receipts, with the exception of receipts from large-scale housing transfers or other housing sales that are not to sitting tenants. We hope to reach a decision on the treatment of such housing transfers shortly.
I believe that the new system of capital finance will ensure a much fairer and more rational distribution of capital resources between local authorities.

Mr. Murphy: I do not agree with the Minister's latter comments, but we welcome some of the changes that have been made in another place.
I shall concentrate on amendment (a) to the Lords amendment No. 46. The fact that my comments will be short and that we will not press the amendment to a Division does not indicate its significance. The amendment would reduce from 75 per cent. to 50 per cent. the reserved part of capital receipts. As a result, local authorities would be able to spend the money that they were responsible for creating. They built the houses. They provided the initiative and the houses that are being sold. It is clear to any sensible person that receipts from sales of those houses should go back to the local authority areas. The amendment asks the Government, yet again, to consider reducing the amount of capital receipts that is reserved, so that half of the money can be put back into the local authority area which generated it.
District councils in Wales recently highlighted the depressed level of provision for housing in Wales, which is at a very low £80 million net. We must also consider the problems of people who are waiting for houses. Some 70,000 people in Wales alone are waiting to be housed. Only this week it was announced that homelessness in the Principality has risen by some 20 per cent. The possibility of houses being built for the homeless, the disabled, single people and elderly people could be achieved at a stroke if these capital controls were altered.
Local authority associations are pressing the Government to allow them to retain the additional spending power of receipts as a major incentive to themselves. I agree. They also draw attention to the bad effects of restricting the use of receipts.
These arguments were well expressed in Committee, and they were highlighted again in the other place. This is the last time when we can tell the Government that the issue of capital receipts is by no means technical, but one that affects the lives of millions of people.
The Government have said that if the amount of spending power from receipts increases, the amount available for distribution through credit approvals, on the basis of needs, decreases. Thus, high need, low capital receipt authorities will be disadvantaged if the reserved part provisions are relaxed. Ministers have been quick to point out that local authority associations that represent those high need, low resources authorities have not been vociferous in their opposition to the Government's proposals. That is not the case. Local authority associations in general think that the aggregate provision is inadequate to deal with today's housing problems.
We believe that a reduction in the reserve part of housing capital receipts from 75 per cent. to 50 per cent. would generate £900 million spending power in one year. I believe that the Government would change their mind as quickly as possible if they considered what that sum of money could do to alleviate our housing problems.
The local government associations have voiced great concern about the timing of the introduction of the new capital control system in 1990–91. The Minister, and all hon. Members who have been involved with local government, would agree that one of the problems in the past has been the inability to plan for housing or any sort of capital provision over a number of years. Unless Parliament and Government give local authorities the opportunity to spend money in a planned programme, well in advance, nothing substantial will be achieved.
The Government should reconsider such changes so that local authorities in Wales and England can plan their housing provision for years to come.

Mr. Tony Banks: The sale of council houses and the way in which local authorities have been effectively conned by the Government is now becoming palpably clear even to the most myopic Conservative Members.
The policy was effectively sold on the ground that the money that local authorities got in capital receipts from the sale of council housing could then be applied to the building of further council housing. There was a certain symmetry in that argument that appealed to Conservative Members and even to some Labour Members. We now realise that that is no longer the case. Gradually the amount of money that can be applied in any given year has been steadily reduced, but. until the most recent changes, at least it still meant that 100 per cent. of capital receipts over a period of time could be used for further capital investment in council housing stock. That is no longer the case and tonight is the final twist in Government policy. Conservative Members used the Government's argument about the sale of council housing to justify accepting it hook, line, and sinker. I hope that they now realise that they have been conned by their Government.
A vigil is now being held outside No. 10 Downing street for homeless people in London. The plight of the homeless in London has now reached a crisis level that one could never have dreamt of in one's worst nightmares five years ago. The Government must realise that the situation in London is so dire that unless local authorities are allowed to go back to the full construction of council housing one trembles to think what London will be like in five years time.
Surely the Government must realise that their sale of council housing policy, linked to a refusal to allow local authorities to use capital receipts for further construction, is a disaster. It was a twist and a con from the start; now it has turned into a tragedy for millions of people who are desperately anxious for improved accommodation.
There are now hundreds of thousands of homeless in London and they will be pointing their fingers at the Government and blaming them for the housing crisis that now afflicts London and the nation.

Mr. David Hunt: It is a question of getting the balance right. Part IV of the Bill is designed to redress the balance between spending from allocations and receipts to ensure not only that needs are met, but that those authorities that generate receipts get a reasonable benefit from doing so.
The hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) pointed out that my predecessors highlighted the fact that similar amendments in the past would have resulted in a cut of £900 million in credit approvals. That means that £900 million less would be targeted on the authorities that need to house the homeless. No doubt the answer would be simple to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)—let local authorities spend the receipts, but do not cut the credit approvals. That may be the Labour party's response, but it is not the response of any party which aspires to responsible control of public expenditure, and it certainly will not be this Government's response.
We have heard a lot about local authorities being unable to spend their own resources on their own priorities. Let us be plain about what those resources are. They are the proceeds of assets which the local authority has sold, the original purchase of which was mainly financed by borrowing. The cost of that borrowing has been, and often still is, supported by the national tax payer through housing subsidy, Government grant and the like. Why should that continue once the asset has been sold? We are not taking the resources away, but simply saying that it is right that some of them should be used to repay the authority's debt.
12.15 am
It is not as if we are stopping local authorities using any of their receipts for new capital expenditure, because next year local authorities will be able to spend nearly £4 billion from their receipts. That is a huge sum in anybody's terms.

Mr. Soley: Does the Minister realise that all his hon. Friends in the Association of District Councils which are Conservative controlled, as well as Lady Anson, who is a Conservative and chairs that organisation, think that he is totally wrong and that the Government should do what my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) suggests? Why does he say that all Conservative-controlled ADCs have got it so badly wrong and he is the only person to have it right?

Mr. Hunt: With due respect to the hon. Gentleman, his analysis is badly wrong. I am saying that the Government believe that what we are proposing represents the right balance between targeting resources on needs and having a proper incentive and reward for generating receipts, which is why I urge the House to resist the Opposition amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 82 to 111, 20 to 80 and 311 to 317 agreed to, one with Special Entry.

Further consideration of Lords amendments adjourned.—[Mr. Sackville.]

To be further considered this day.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(5) (Standing Committees on European Community Documents.)

DISCHARGE OF DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES TO WATER

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8337/88 and the Supplementary Memorandum submitted by the Department of the Environment on 10th July 1989 relating to the control of discharges of dangerous substances to water, and supports the Government's efforts to secure the future selection of substances for priority action according to clear, scientific criteria.℄[Mr. Sackville.]

Question agreed to.

Health Care, Hackney

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sackville]

Ms. Diane Abbott: I wish to address the problems of the Health Service, specifically those in Hackney. The crisis faced by the Health Service is multi-dimensional. I do not intend to deal with every aspect, but I cannot let time pass without referring to the imminent and horrifying possibility, for those interested in patient care, of the Army being used as strike-breakers in an ambulance workers' dispute in which the ambulance workers have at no time threatened emergency care or services.
I wish to deal with three aspects of health care in Hackney: first, the cuts in the level of provision; secondly, the horror of free market principles being applied to the Health Service; and, thirdly, the future of St. Bartholemew's hospital. We hear a lot from the Government about their notion of themselves as the custodians of our Health Service. We have heard the Prime Minister say that the Health Service is safe in the Government's hands. We in Hackney are not aware of this. All that we have seen in the past is a series of savage cuts in the level of provision.
In the past few years in my part of London we have seen not one, but six, hospitals close down. We have lost the Mothers' hospital, most of the provision on the site of the Hackney hospital, the German hospital, St. Leonard's hospital and the Metropolitan hospital.
When the Mothers', Hackney and the German hospitals were closed, we were promised compensatory provisions at the new Homerton hospital. The promise of a new hospital dates back to 1976, and, although phase 1 was built, phase 2 has been delayed for almost a decade. The consequence is that a small group of some of the most pathetic patients—the elderly, the mentally ill and the psychogeriatric patients—remain in what is left of the site of the old Hackney hospital.
I challenge the Minister to visit that site, which is now almost wholly evacuated. It is like a ghost hospital. The buildings are more than 100 years old and they are a fire risk, yet it is there that some of the most pathetic and deprived clients of the Health Service are forced to live out their days. The conditions have been described by consultants as both unpleasant and inappropriate. Despite the superhuman efforts and dedication of the staff, many of my constituents—vulnerable, elderly and psychiatrically ill patients—are being forced to linger on in a derelict, virtually slum environment.
It appears that phase 2 of the Homerton hospital, which would save those psychiatrically ill patients from such conditions, may be postponed indefinitely. That shows a shocking lack of good faith by the health authority. Therefore, I have raised this matter this evening for one main reason—to urge a swift commitment from the appropriate authorities to end the years of delay and forthwith to set in train the building of phase 2. Hundreds and hundreds of pathetically ill, elderly and psychiatric patients are waiting for an answer to the problem.
There have been cuts in provision and the closure of local hospitals without any compensatory new facilities. Further cuts in provision have occurred because the health authorities are very short of money, through no fault of

their own, because of the consequences of inflation, under-funded wage settlements, increasingly complex cases and the increasing price of drugs.
As a consequence of that under-funding and the shortage of money, the City and Hackney are suffering a series of bed closures. St. Bartholomew's hospital has a capacity for 850 beds, but it is funded for only 600 and currently it is virtually half empty. It is a flagship hospital —the oldest hospital in London—that has marvellous, purpose-built wards for cancer, geriatric and psychiatric patients, but they are mothballed and empty. If that is the operation of the free market, it is the economics of the madhouse. Week in and week out I receive letters from my constituents who for years wait in pain for surgery while Bart's is half empty because of the Government's refusal to make the funds available to enable the hospital to utilise all its beds.
During the past few weeks there has been an announcement that, because of chronic under-funding, 75 beds at Bart's are to be closed, 100 agency nurses are to go, cleaning and catering jobs are to be cut, and offices are to be cleaned only once a fortnight. General practitioners are complaining locally that it is far more difficult now to get acutely ill patients into hospital. Patients arrive and have to wait six hours for a bed. Bart's however, has been forced to stop using 75 beds.
How can the Government say that the Health Service is safe in their hands? Bart's is famed for its health care throughout the world. It is full of doctors, student doctors, nurses and ancillary workers who wish only to serve the public, and there is the poor community of Hackney with its pressing needs. I repeat the question: how can the Government say that the Health Service is safe in their hands? As a result of their failure to make the correct level of funding available, Bart's is having to close beds and mothball wards. The part of east London which I represent has had to face real cuts in provision.
A new and grotesque concept that the caring Clarke, the Secretary of State for Health, has presented to the Health Service is called acute sector productivity. What does that term mean? It is one of many euphemisms that have been presented to us over the years for cuts in provision. This so-called productivity means more patients using the same number of beds with the same number of staff, or fewer staff. Patient throughput might make sense in terms of a production line in industry, but when it is applied to health care it is grotesque and leads to real suffering.
One of my constituents, Mrs. Mann, lives on the Woodberry Down estate. She is 88 years of age and registered as blind. She has been treated for Parkinson's disease. She has high blood pressure and a heart condition. In June, she was admitted to the Whittington hospital. After a stay of about one month she was discharged because her bed was needed. Within 24 hours of discharge she was found collapsed on the floor of her flat. She was taken to the Homerton hospital the same evening but sent home again because no bed was available. In the end, because of the direct intervention of her GP, she was readmitted to the Whittington hospital, but only for three days. Once more, she was discharged. All that happened in the name of increased throughput. On Friday 8 September, when she was discharged, she found herself sitting in a chair day and night because she was unable to


get herself in and out of bed. Eventually her home help became so concerned that she called the GP, who diagnosed a chest infection and hypothermia.
Ministers seem not to understand that increased patient throughput leads inevitably to an increased level of readmission. That is the result of patients being sent home far too early. In Hackney, there is poor housing and social services are overstretched. There is insufficient support for those who were hospital patients. A consultant at Bart's has said:
Consultants are already cutting corners in order to get patients out of hospital, in many cases before they are ready to cope in their home circumstances.
What sort of political and managerial philosophy lies behind the treatment of my constituent, Mrs. Mann? I believe that it stems from a balance sheet. It is based on figures and ignores patient care and the social and economic realities that face many of those who are dependent on the Health Service. It seems to me that the philosophy of the so-called "caring Mr. Clarke" will downgrade the traditional, solicitous in-patient care to the status of a hokey-cokey hospital service—in, out, in, out, shake them all about.
The notion that money can be saved in the Health Service by increasing throughput—particularly when applied to hospitals serving the kind of deprived constituency that I represent℄although it may lead to increased patient throughput in the short term, will lead to increased patient misery in the medium term, along with a decrease in service and care, and a decline in the high standards that we have come to expect from our Health Service.
I want to talk about the future of St. Bartholomew's hospital, because it is a subject of great concern to the people of Hackney. They look to Bart's as the major teaching hospital with Hackney in its catchment area. Bart's is the oldest hospital in London: it was founded in 1123, and founded with a mission—I quote from the original draft℄to
minister to the necessities of the poor gathered together in that place
and to be a house for
the care of the sick poor".
What will the proposal for Bart's, the Homerton and the other hospital in the district to opt out as a self-governing trust mean to the necessities of the poor, and the care of the sick poor? I believe—and the people of Hackney believe—that it will inevitably mean that the needs and demands of the working class people in the vicinity of Bart's will be neglected in the drive for profit and profitable specialties.
We hear of plans involving sponsorship from Marks and Spencer and, for the first time, private wards at Bart's. That is an extraordinary falling-off from the original idealism of more than 800 years ago, and I suspect that St. Bartholomew is turning in his grave as our thoroughly modern Ministers, with their free-market slide rules, slowly demean a still great hospital to the production-line numbers game of a battery-hen factory.
The plan for Bart's—to open it up to private medicine so that it can minister to the yuppies of the City—can, I believe, be achieved only at the expense of health care for the immediate community. If that is not the case—if Ministers are convinced that for such a hospital to opt out will mean no dropping-off in service, and possibly even an improvement—I challenge them to allow the local community to have a say in whether their local teaching

hospital should be allowed to opt out. I suspect that they will not be allowed it, for at no point in the documentation issued on the matter are local people or patients given any say in whether their hospitals opt out.
The future of Bart's, that great old teaching hospital —that great old centre of learning, teaching and care, in the words of its founders, "for the sick poor"—is, I feel, a paradigm for the future of the Health Service. The market is to be all; the local community and patients are not to be allowed a say. It will all be reduced to the managerial philosophy of the accountant, of the balance sheet, of making the figures match.
We know from talking to consultants, doctors, nurses and ancillary workers at Bart's that, although the majority have been prepared to declare an interest in the proposal, that majority also feel that they have no option. If they had a free choice, they undoubtedly would not choose to opt out.
Inner London, particularly my district of Hackney in east London, will face a Health Service crisis at Christmas. If we have a severe winter and a rise in the number of people using the accident and emergency unit, the number of bed closures will mean that we shall be unable to cope. Due to the Government's and balance sheet manipulation, due to their failure to fulfil promises about new build in the district, and, above all, due to their mindless espousal of market forces as opposed to the humanitarian and caring impulses of the founders of hospitals such as Bart's, the people of Hackney are facing a health care crisis as never before.
I challenge the Minister to dispute that fact. I challenge him to say that he will make money available so that Bart's can fill its beds instead of being obliged to have closed wards. I challenge him to say that he will make money available so that Bart's will be able to make good the 100 or so agency nurses that it has had to get rid of. Above all, I challenge the Minister to say that the Government will make a reality of their boast about the National Health Service and that they will face up to the real meaning of market place ethics when they are applied to health care.
I challenge the Government to commit themselves to making available money for the building of phase 2 of the Homerton hospital. Finally, I challenge them to admit here what the founders of Bart's knew 800 years ago: that when it comes to the care of the sick, when it comes to the needs of the sick poor, when it comes to
waiting upon the sick with diligence
the ethics and thinking of the market place have no real place. Even at this late hour and at this late stage, I challenge the Government to reconsider their far-reaching proposals for the Health Service, to think about the damage that they are wreaking, and to reflect upon the health care crisis that is facing the inner cities.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): I share the great concern of the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) for the wellbeing of the citizens who live in the catchment area of the district health authority. I part company, however, with her analysis of the district health authority's problems and her prescriptions for the future. I do not share her view that it is an and exercise to consider resource implications. Governments of whatever political persuasion have to consider the proper allocation of


resources so as to ensure that the money allocated to district health authorities is used in the most efficient way possible.
The hon. Lady knows that by professional background and training I am an accountant. I do not believe that the application of sound financial management and practice is inhumanitarian. The reverse is the case. The most humanitarian way to run the National Health Service is always to be concerned about using scarce resources in the most efficient way. She knows that in 1989–90 the City and Hackney district health authority has been allocated just over £100 million. She also knows that there have been no cuts in that district. Gross revenue expenditure by the City and Hackney district health authority rose from some £70 million in 1982–83 to just over £100 million in the current financial year. That represents a very significant increase in cash terms and in real terms. I find the hon. Lady's reference to cuts in the district difficult to comprehend.

Ms. Abbott: Is it not the case that Bart's has recently had to close 75 beds?

Mr. Freeman: If the hon. Lady will permit me, I shall be happy to deal with that in the eight minutes left of this Adjournment debate.
Before I do so, I should like to tell the hon. Lady that I visited Hackney earlier this year to look at the community psychiatric services. I know that the hon. Lady will join me in congratulating the district health authority on its organisation of those excellent services. I visited the community psychiatric research unit which is based at the hospital. The unit was funded originally through the generosity of David Sainsbury and is now funded by the district health authority. I met the directors, Dr. Turner and Mr. Adrian Lovet, and I visited two people who were living in their own flats with support from the district health authority, having left psychiatric care at the hospital. I also visited two group homes, one at Clapton common which is run by the local mental health association and one in E8 run by a local voluntary organisation called Vanguard Housing. I was very impressed by what I saw. I have reached the conclusion that community psychiatric care is working in Hackney and I congratulate all those involved.
The hon. Lady referred to patient throughput. I remind the House that the discharge of patients from hospital is a matter of clinical responsibility. Doctors, not hospital administrators, take decisions about when people are discharged. The national trend in Britain, together with many other western European countries, is that the average stay in hospital is getting shorter. That is to be welcomed. Patients generally prefer to leave hospital as quickly as possible after they have been medically treated. I am advised that in the City and Hackney district health authority, day surgery increased by 22 per cent. between 1982 and 1986. That is excellent.
The Labour party's common belief that the quantity, though not necessarily the quality, of health care in the National Health Service can be measured by the number of beds available is misleading. What counts is not the number of beds but the number of patients treated. Patient throughput in the City and Hackney area has gone up, and that is the best measure of health care.
The hon. Lady might be interested in the 1987–88 Kôrner Health Service indicators for the City and Hackney. I hope that she has studied them, but if she has not had the chance to do so I should be happy to send her the statistics. The document states:
Throughput values ranged from the high values for Ophthalmology and Gynaecology to the low values for Trauma and Orthopaedics and General Surgery/Urology. Lengths of stay for patients over 65 years were high or very high for all specialties except Ophthalmology. For patients age 16–64 years they were mostly mid range except for very high value for General Surgery/Urology. They were also very high for Paediatrics. Day case rates were mainly mid range except for the high values for Ophthalmology and Gynaecology.
Therefore, patient throughput needs to be examined by specialty.
The hon. Lady asked me to comment on the situation at Bart's and I am happy to do so. Three wards have been closed temporarily. The hon. Lady knows that two have been closed for operational reasons of maintenance and fire safety and one has been closed for financial reasons. The hon. Lady mentioned the financial difficulties not only for Bart's, but for the entire health district. North East Thames regional health authority recognises the position of the City and Hackney and is in discussion with the district about what can be done to ameliorate the present situation.
One of the main causes of the potential overspend in City and Hackney health authority is due to the increased numbers of cases being referred to St. Bartholomew's hospital from outside the district requiring complex and intensive nursing care. As a result, the authority has had to use additional agency nurses and ask nurses to work increased overtime.
The hon. Lady will know, if she has studied the White Paper "Working for Patients", that that document carries an excellent message of hope for Bart's, a major teaching hospital, and I trust that she will join me in hoping that legislation, if presented, will receive a swift passage, since it will bring hope to her constituents and represents an excellent message for the medical staff at St. Bartholomew's.
That will be the position because money will follow the patient. The hon. Lady will know that only about 30 per cent. of patients treated at Bart's live in the district. About 70 per cent. come from outwith the district. Thus, our proposal that money should follow the patient will mean that, through the mechanism of contracts, resources will flow from surrounding districts to Bart's in those specialties in which, as the hon. Lady rightly said, Bart's has an outstanding reputation.
We shall end the efficiency trap by which consultants and doctors who work hard eat up the fixed resources in their budgets more quickly and then, halfway or two thirds of the way through the year, find themselves having exhausted their budgets and having to curtail their activities. We do not want that to happen in future. We want greater flexibility in the funding of the NHS, and the Government's White Paper, presented earlier this year, foreshadowing legislation, will be of great assistance, not only to the hon. Lady's constituents but to the NHS in general.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to One o'clock.